GIFT  or 

E#    Jones 


THE 


LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD 


UPON    THE    EARTH; 


CONSIDERED   IN   ITS 


HISTORICAL,  CHRONOLOGICAL,  AND  GEOGRAPHICAL 
RELATIONS. 


BT 

SAMUEL  J.  ANDREWS. 


IFOI^TH  JEDiftOWi   ,'  j',  '• 


NEW  YORK: 

CHARLES  SORIBNER  &  CO.,  No.   654  BROADWAY. 

1868. 


BT30/ 


Entered,  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1S68,  by 

SAMUEL  J.  ANDREWS, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Stat*  of 
Connecticut* 


JOi?>  f.  tbqw\   :  .    .  , 

FBI1TTXB,  STEREOTYPES,  AND  ELECTROTYPES, 

48  &  50  Greene  Street, 
New  York. 


wM 


TO 


MY      BBOTHIB, 


WILLIAM  WATSON  ANDREWS, 


GUIDE  OF   MY   EAELY, 


AND     COMPANION      OF     MY      LATER     STUDIES, 


THIS    HOOK    18 


^ffectionatelg  Inscribed 


293334 


PREFACE  TO  THE  NEW  EDITION. 


Since  the  publication  of  this  work  several  books 
bearing  upon  its  subject  have  been  published,  but  only 
one  seems  to  call  for  particular  notice  here ;  and  this 
rather  from  the  sensation  it  has  made  in  the  sceptical 
world  than  from  any  light  it  casts  upon  the  earthly  life 
of  our  Lord:  I  mean  M.  Kenan's  "Life  of  Jesus." 
Assuming  that  the  Gospels  are  not  wholly  veritable 
records  but  contain  a  mixture  of  truth  and  error,  he 
attempts  to  distinguish  between  these  elements,  and  to 
separate  the  wheat  from  the  chaff.  The  principle  upon 
which  he  proceeds  we  give  in  his  own  words.1  "  Criti- 
cism has  two  modes  of  attacking  a  marvellous  narra- 

1  See  his  Essay  on  the   "  The  Critical  Historians  of  Jesus."    Froth- 
ingham's  translation. 


VI  PREFACE. 

tion ;  for  as  to  accepting  it  as  it  stands,  it  cannot  think 
of  it,  since  its  essence  is  denial  of  the  supernatural" 
Of  course  he  cannot  accept  the  facts  of  our  Lord's  life 
as  given  by  the  Evangelists,  but  aims  to  clear  them  of 
the  distortions  and  perversions  that  destroy  their  his- 
torical character,  and  thus  to  give  us  a  true,  genuine 
biography  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity.  To  those, 
therefore,  who  are  curious  to  see  what  conception  a 
learned  Frencliman  of  the  nineteenth  century,  who  dis- 
believes in  a  personal  God *  and  in  all  miracles,  has  of 
our  Saviour's  person  and  labors,  this  book  has  a  certain 
sad  interest ;  but  so  far  as  the  evangelic  narratives  and 
any  true  historical  criticism  upon  them  are  concerned, 
it  has  no  value.  I  do  not  recall  any  particular  in 
which  it  adds  anything  to  our  knowledge  of  the  Gospel 
history  even  in  its  external  features ;  much  less  does  it 
render  us  any  aid  in  the  understanding  of  its  higher 
meaning. 

The  importance  of  M.  Kenan's  "  Life  of  Jesus  "  is 


1  I  would  not  attribute  to  M.  Renan  any  opinion  he  does  not  hold,  but 
that  he  is  a  pantheist  seems  fairly  inferrible  from  the  letter,  as  well  as 
from  the  general  spirit,  of  his  writings.  I  quote  but  one  passage,  as  given 
by  Frothingham :  "  The  whole  question  is  to  know  whether  God  emits 
particular  acts.  For  myself,  I  believe  that  the  true  Providence  is  not  dis- 
tinct from  the  order,  so  constant,  divine,  perfectly  wise,  just  and  good, 
which  reigns  in  the  laws  of  the  universe." 


PREFACE.  Vij 

chiefly  as  a  sign  of  the  progress  in  the  sceptical  world. 
Strauss'  work  was  destructive.  He  left  to  his  readers 
only  the  name  of  Jesus,  a  dim  shadow,  a  cloudy  phan- 
tasm. M.  Kenan  undertakes  the  task  of  reconstruc- 
tion. He  will  give  to  the  world  the  real  image  in  flesh 
and  blood  of  Him  whom  so  many  generations  have  igno- 
rantly  and  superstitiously  adored  as  the  Son  of  God. 
He  will  reproduce  Him  before  us,  and  show  that  He 
was  a  natural  product  of  His  age,  a  mere  Jewish  peas- 
ant, with  nothing  supernatural  about  Him.  Now  for 
the  first  time  in  the  mirror  of  scientific  criticism  we  can 
see  Him  as  He  was.  And  what  kind  of  an  image  does 
he  present  to  us  ?  We  see  a  man,  not  simply  unlearn- 
ed, uncultured,  but  a  man  weak,  deluded,  the  dupe  of 
others,  and  of  his  own  fancies ;  and  more  than  this,  a 
deceiver,  a  man  conniving  at  imposture  and  falsehood.1 
This  is  all  that  M.  Ren  an  can  get  from  the  Gospels. 
After  rejecting  the  supernatural  features  of  the  narra- 
tion, this  is  the  highest  reality  that  he  can  possibly 
frame  from  the  residuum. 

And  the  world  is  called  upon  to  believe  that  in  such 

a  man  Christianity  had  its  source.    Will  this  satisfy  the 

unbeliever  ?     The  Christian  spurns  it  from  him  with 

abhorrence.     From  the  poor,  tawdry,  wax  figure,  the 

1  See  Life  of  Jesus,  ch.  xxii 


VU1  PREFACE. 

sentimental  enthusiast,  the  "beautiful"  youth,  whom 
M.  Renan  presents  to  him,  he  turns  away  to  Him 
whom  the  apostles  and  martyrs  worshipped,  in  whom 
dwells  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,  the  Image 
of  God ;  to  Him  who  was  dead  and  is  alive  again  for 
evermore,  and  who  has  the  keys  of  death  and  hell. 

The  time  has  now  fully  come  when  those  who  will 
not  have  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  and  of  the  Church, 
must  construct  a  Jesus  for  themselves.  They  deny  the 
veracity  of  the  Evangelists ;  let  them,  then,  explain  the 
origin  of  Christianity,  and  tell  us  from  what  fountain  this 
mighty  river  has  flowed.  All  experience  and  philos- 
ophy, to  say  nothing  of  Christian  consciousness,  reject 
the  thought  that  it  could  originate  in  such  a  man  as 
M.  Renan  describes.  Here  is  the  problem  for  the  un- 
believer. Given  Christianity,  its  creeds,  its  history  for 
eighteen  centuries,  and  tell  us  who  was  its  founder,  what 
his  life,  what  his  character.  That  M.  Renan  has  miser- 
ably failed  in  his  attempt  at  its  solution,  even  now  few 
will  deny.  All  instinctively  feel  that  no  such  feeble 
nature  as  he  portrays  could  have  received  the  homage 
of  Peter  and  John  and  Paul,  or  become  an  object  of 
worship  to  any  noble  mind.  The  cause  is  not  ade- 
quate to  the  effect ;  the  man  is  not  equal  to  the  work. 
The  problem  is  yet  unsolved  for  the  unbeliever,  and 


PBEFACE.  ix 

we  may  safely  say  that  for  him  it  will  ever  remain  un- 
solved. 

Renan,  like  Strauss,  seeks  to  substitute  an  ideal  for 
the  actual  Christ.  He  says :  "  What  matters  it  to  us 
what  passed  in  Palestine  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  ? 
How  does  it  concern  us  that  Jesus  was  born  in  such  or 
such  a  village,  that  he  had  such  or  such  ancestors,  that 
he  suffered  on  such  or  such  a  day  of  the  holy  week  ? " 
It  is  not  true  that  these  particulars  are  unimportant  in 
the  life  of  Jesus,  for  they  prove  the  reality  of  His 
earthly  history.  Time  and  place  are  essential  parts  of 
the  great  Fact  of  the  Incarnation.  The  Son  of  God,  in 
becoming  man,  must  be  born  at  a  certain  period  of  the 
world's  history,  in  a  certain  portion  of  its  territory,  and 
stand  in  well-defined  relations  to  certain  of  its  inhabit- 
ants. Such  limitations  belong  to  the  very  essence  of 
His  humanity.  These  outward  facts  the  Evangelists 
do  not  overlook.  It  is  true  that  they  do  not  enter  into 
any  great  minuteness  of  detail.  Of  the  external  events 
of  the  Lord's  life  for  many  years  we  know  very  little. 
Yet  they  do  not  neglect  those  relations  of  time  and 
place  which  are  necessary  to  convince  us  of  the  reality 
of  His  earthly  existence,  and  to  give  us  a  distinct  pic- 
ture of  His  labours. 

But  it  is  not  facts  of  this  class  merely  that  M.  Renan 


X  PREFACE. 

regards  as  unimportant.  To  him  the  Gospels  are  as  a 
fine  poem  of  which  Jesus  is  the  hero ;  and  as  we  do 
not  care  whether  the  heroes  of  Homer  had  any  actual 
existence,  so  is  it  here.  The  world  may  be  as  much 
blessed  through  the  ideal  Jesus  as  through  the  real. 

But  let  not  such  language  deceive  us.  Christianity 
is  a  religion  of  facts,  not  of  ideas.  It  rests  upon  the 
being  of  a  personal  God.  It  stands  or  falls  with  the 
reality  of  the  statements  in  the  Apostle's  creed.  Its 
doctrines  are  only  the  explanations  of  its  facts.  The 
Epistles  of  the  New  Testament  have  no  meaning 
if  the  Gospels  are  not  historically  true.  We  cannot 
too  steadily  keep  in  mind  that  Christianity  is  Christ. 
Jesus  did  not  merely  originate  a  spiritual  movement. 
He  is  Himself  the  living,  abiding  power  of  the  move- 
ment. We  look  back  to  no  sepulchre ;  we  look  up  to 
the  Living  One  in  the  Heavens,  Jesus  Christ  risen 
from  the  dead,  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  forever. 
Christianity  lives  because  He  lives. 

Let  then  the  issue  between  the  sceptic  and  the  be- 
liever be  kept  clearly  before  us.  If  Jesus  is  now  at 
God's  right  hand,  Head  over  all  things  unto  the 
Church,  Christianity  lives  in  Him,  and  must  live  so 
long  as  He  lives.  It  is  because  He  is.  If,  as  Strauss 
and  Renan  say,  He  has  no  longer  any  personal  exist- 


PREFACE.  XI 

ence ;  if  He  lives  only  in  history,  and  as  an  idea,  then 
Christianity,  like  other  systems,  will  yield  to  time,  will 
suffer  the  transmutations  of  all  things  earthly.  A  new 
teacher  will  arise  and  men  will  follow  him.  Already, 
indeed,  we  hear  many  demanding  a  new  Christ,  as  an 
embodiment  of  a  higher  ideal.  The  Christian  Church 
takes  her  stand  upon  the  fact  of  the  present  personal 
existence  of  her  Head,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  has 
now  all  power  in  Heaven  and  earth,  and  who  shall 
coime  again  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.  He  will 
in  due  time  vindicate  Himself,  be  His  own  witness  and 
avenger.  We  may  wait  with  patience  the  appointed 
hour. 

The  Life  of  Jesus  by  Strauss1  recently  published 
presents  nothing  new,  and  calls  for  no  particular  notice 
here. 

1  Das  Leben  Jean  fur  das  deutsche  Volk  bearbeitet     1864. 
Habxtord,  Comr.,  Oct.,  1864. 


PREFACE. 


It  may  be  well  to  state  distinctly  here  that  this 
book  does  not  design  to  enter  into  any  critical  in- 
quiries respecting  the  text  of  the  Evangelists.  In  the 
few  cases  where  a  historical  statement  is  affected  by 
the  different  readings,  Tischendorf  is  followed,  use  being 
made  of  his  "  Synopsis  Evangelica,"  Lipsise,  1854.  Kef- 
erence  is  also  made  in  such  cases  to  Meyer  and  Alford, 
and  occasionally  to  other  authorities.  Nor  does  it  de- 
sign to  enter  into  any  questions  respecting  the  author- 
ship of  the  Gospels,  the  time  when  written,  or  their 
relations  to  each  other.  Nor  does  it  discuss  the  point 
of  their  inspiration,  but  assumes  that  they  are  genuine 
historical  documents,  and  statements  of  facts ;  and  deals 
with  them  as  such.  Nor  does  it  aim  to  explain  or 
interpret  the  Lord's  parables,  or  discourses ;  or  to  dis- 
cuss questions  of  mere  archaeology,  or  of  verbal  criti- 
cism. Those  who  wish  information  upon  these  points 
will  consult  the  authors  who  have  written  specially 
upon  them. 

The  simple  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  arrange  the 


XIV  PBEFACE. 

events  of  the  Lord's  life,  as  given  us  by  the  Evangelists, 
so  far  as  possible,  in  a  chronological  order,  and  to  state 
the  grounds  of  this  order ;  and  to  consider  the  difficul- 
ties as  to  matters  of  fact  which  the  several  narratives, 
when  compared  together,  present ;  or  are  supposed  by 
modern  criticism  to  present. 

As  the  necessary  foundation  for  a  chronological  ar- 
rangement, the  dates  of  the  Lord's  birth  and  death,  and 
the  duration  of  His  public  ministry,  are  discussed  in 
brief  preliminary  essays.  The  geographical  discussions 
are  all  limited  to  the  sites  of  places  directly  related  to 
the  narratives.  No  more  notice  is  taken  of  the  general 
history  of  the  time,  than  is  necessary  to  explain  the  oc- 
casional references  of  the  Evangelists. 

In  order  not  to  avoid  aDy  points  of  real  difficulty 
which  the  historical  statements  of  the  Gospels  present, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  not  to  weary  the  reader  with  dis- 
cussions of  the  alleged  discrepancies  which  some  critics 
find,  or  affect  to  find,  so  thickly  strewn  upon  their 
pages,  I  have  selected,  as  the  latest  exponents  of  the 
critical  tendencies  of  the  times,  the  Commentaries  of  the 
German,  Meyer,  and  of  the  Englishman,  Alford.  Both 
of  these  are  ready,  and  over  ready,  as  I  think,  to  admit 
mistakes  in  matters  of  fact,  and  to  affirm  that  the  Evan- 
gelists, in  certain  points,  cannot  be  harmonized ;  yet 
both  admit  the  supernatural  element  in  the  Gospels, 
and  expose  and  set  aside  many  of  the  objections  of  the 
merely  negative  criticism.  To  these  two  commentators, 
therefore,  very  frequent  reference  is  made,  and  whatever 


PREFACE.  XV 

difficulties  they  present,  as  really  such,  are  for  the  most 
part  noticed. 

From  what  has  just  been  said,  the  reader  will  not 
be  surprised  that  no  notice  whatever  has  been  taken  of 
Strauss,  and  his  "  Life  of  Jesus."  The  principle  upon 
which  he  proceeds,  in  his  historical  criticism,  he  thus 
states :  "  No  just  notion  of  the  true  nature  of  history  is 
possible,  without  a  perception  of  the  inviolability  of  the 
chain  of  finite  causes,  and  of  the  impossibility  of  mir- 
acles." If  a  miracle  is  impossible,  it  is  plainly  a  work 
of  supererogation  to  refute  in  detail  a  history,  which, 
upon  its  face,  professes  to  be  a  record  of  supernatural 
events.  After  striking  out  all  that  is  ascribed  to  im- 
mediate divine  agency,  as  incredible,  the  residuum  is 
scarce  worth  the  trouble  of  contending  for.  Besides,  an 
attentive  examination  of  Strauss'  "  Life  of  Jesus  "  has 
made  upon  my  own  mind  the  impression  that  he  deals 
with  the  evangelic  narratives  in  a  most  unfair,  not  to 
say  dishonest,  spirit.  Everywhere  he  finds  discrepan- 
cies and  contradictions ;  and  one  cannot  help  feeling, 
that  whatever  the  Evangelists  might  have  narrated,  he 
would  find  as  many  objections  to  their  statements  as 
now.  For  the  same  reason  that  nothing  is  said  of 
Strauss,  no  allusion  is  made  to  Hennell,  or  Bruno 
Bauer,  or  others  of  that  school.  The  Commentaries  of 
De  Wette,  and  the  Life  of  Jesus  by  Hase,  have  high 
literary  merits,  but  the  sceptical  spirit  in  which  they  are 
written,  gives  them  only  a  negative  value  in  these  in- 
quiries. 


XVI  PREFACE. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  references  are  almost  ex- 
clusively to  recent  writers.  This  is  intentional.  To 
notice  the  latest  results  of  modern  criticism  and  inves- 
tigation, has  been  my  purpose  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  I 
have  not  neglected  to  examine  the  more  prominent  of 
the  older  writers  in  this  department,  so  far  as  I  have 
been  able,  from  Augustine  downward.  While,  in  some 
cases,  and  chiefly  those  pertaining  to  chronology  and 
geography,  the  wider  scope  of  modern  scholarship  has 
given  us  new  materials  for  judgment,  yet  it  must  be 
admitted  that  in  regard  to  internal  discrepancies,  not 
^infrequently  the  old  solutions  are  the  best.  No  reader, 
familiar  with  their  writings,  will  be  surprised  to  find 
Lightfoot,  Lardner,  Baronius,  Reland,  and  some  others, 
here  referred  to  as  of  high  authority,  even  at  this  day, 
in  their  respective  departments.  That  so  many  ref- 
erences are  made  to  German  writers,  is  owing  to  the 
fact  that  no  other  scholars  have  labored  so  diligently 
and  successfully  in  this  field. 

That  all  will  find  the  solutions  of  alleged  discrepan- 
cies and  contradictions  here  given,  satisfactory,  is  not 
to  be  expected.  Nor  will  the  chronological  order,  or 
topographical  results,  be  received  by  all.  But  it  is  a 
great  point  gained,  to  be  able  to  see  just  what  the 
amount  of  the  discrepancy  or  contradiction,  if  it  really 
exists,  is.  Those  readers  who  have  been  accustomed 
to  hear,  through  sceptical  critics,  of  the  numerous 
errors  and  mistakes  of  the  Evangelists,  will  be  sur- 
prised to  learn  how  few  are  the  points  of  real  difficulty, 


PREFACE.  Xvii 

and  how  often  these  are  exaggerated  by  the  misinter- 
pretation of  the  critic  himself.  There  are  not  a  few 
commentators  who  adopt  the  rigid  literalism  of  Osian- 
der ;  not,  like  him,  to  defend  the  credibility  of  the  Gos- 
pel narrative,  but  to  destroy  it. 

In  regard  to  the  exact  order  of  events,  there  is 
room  for  great  differences  of  opinion,  and  positive 
statements  are  impossible.  There  are,  however,  cer- 
tain well  marked  lines  of  division,  and  the  precise  ar- 
rangement of  the  details  is  comparatively  unimportant, 
as  not  at  all  affecting  the  historical  accuracy  of  the 
narratives,  and  must  be  left  to  the  exegetical  tact,  or 
critical  acumen  of  the  student. 

It  will  not  be  expected  that  I  should  present,  upon 
a  subject  discussed  for  so  many  centuries  by  the  best 
minds  of  the  Church,  anything  distinctively  new.  Still, 
I  trust  that  some  points  have  been  set  in  clearer  light, 
and  that  the  general  arrangement  will  facilitate  the 
inquiries  of  those  who  seek  to  know  as  much  as  is  possi- 
ble of  the  external  history  of  the  Lord's  works  and 
words,  that  they  may  the  better  penetrate  into  their 
spiritual  meaning.  I  have  given  considerable  promi- 
nence to  the  great  divisions  of  His  work,  first  in  Judea, 
and  then  in  Galilee,  and  to  the  character  of  His  last 
journey  to  Jerusalem ;  both  as  explaining  some  peculi- 
arities in  the  synoptical  Gospels,  and  as  showing  that 
His  work  was  carried  on  under  true  historic  conditions. 
There  is  no  fact  more  important  to  be  kept  clearly  in 
mind  in  these  studies  than  this,  that  Jesus  was  very 


IV1U  PREFACE. 

man  no  less  than  very  God.  While  recognizing  the 
supernatural  elements  in  the  evangelic  narratives 
wherever  they  exist,  we  are  not  so  to  introduce  them 
as  to  make  these  narratives  the  records  of  a  life  neither 
human,  nor  divine.  The  Lord,  in  all  His  words  and 
works,  in  His  conduct  toward  the  Jews,  and  His  repeat- 
ed efforts  to  make  them  hear  and  receive  Him,  acted 
as  man,  under  those  laws  which  God  at  the  beginning 
established  to  guide  human  action.  His  life  on  earth 
was  in  the  highest  sense  a  human  one,  and  it  is  this 
fact  that  gives  us  the  key  to  the  Gospels  as  real  historic 
records. 

It  may  properly  here  be  said,  that  this  work  was 
ready  for  the  press  two  years  since,  and  that  its  publi- 
cation has  been  delayed  to  this  time  by  the  troubled 
aspect  of  our  political  affairs.  I  cannot  regret  the 
delay,  as  it  has  given  me  the  opportunity  to  examine 
several  valuable  works  that  have  appeared  in  this  inter- 
val. Among  these  are  Ellicott's  "  Historical  Lectures 
on  the  Life  of  our  Lord ; "  vols,  fifth  and  sixth  of  Sepp's 
"  Leben  Jesu ; "  Jones'  "  Notes  on  the  Scriptures ; "  and 
Lewin's  "  Jerusalem."  To  the  first  of  these,  distinguish- 
ed by  its  accurate  scholarship  and  reverential  tone,  and 
which  happily  has  been  republished  in  this  country,  and 
is  thus  accessible  to  all,  I  have  made  frequent  references. 
I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  my  obligations  to  the 
Notes  of  the  late  Judge  Jones,  whose  deep  insight  into 
the  meaning  of  the  Evangelists  none  can  doubt,  al- 
though he  may,  perhaps,  at  times  be  charged  with  over- 


PREFACE.  XIX 

subtlety  and  refinement.  I  must  also  make  thankful 
mention  of  the  Commentaries  on  Mark  and  Matthew, 
the  latter  unhappily  unfinished,  of  the  late  Prof.  J.  A. 
Alexander,  who,  without  any  of  the  parade  of  learning, 
gives  us  its  most  solid  results.  Some  recent  works,  as 
that  of  Tischendorf,  "  Aus  dem  heiligen  Lande,"  Leip- 
zig, 1862,  came  into  my  hands  too  late  to  be  of  use. 

How  poor  and  unworthy  of  Him,  the  external  as- 
pects of  whose  earthly  life  I  have  endeavored  in  some 
points  to  portray,  my  labors  are,  none  can  feel  more 
deeply  than  myself.  I  can  only  pray  that  His  blessing 
— the  blessing  that  changed  the  water  into  wine — may 
go  with  this  book,  and  make  it,  in  some  measure,  useful 
to  His  children. 

Habtfobd,  Oohn.,  Oct.  1862. 


LIST  OF  AUTHORS  CITED. 


Fob  the  convenience  of  younger  students,  and  because,  in  the 
notes  I  have  generally,  for  the  sake  of  brevity^  referred  to  authors 
by  their  names,  and  not  given  the  titles  of  their  works,  I  add  here 
a  list  of  such  of  the  more  recent  writers  as  are  most  frequently 
cited,  with  the  titles  in  fall.  The  elder  writers,  whose  works  are 
well  known,  it  is  not  necessary  to  include  in  the  list. 

Aucxandir,  J.  A.,  Commentary  upon  Matthew  and  Mark.    New  York, 

1858-1861. 
Ai.ro rd,  H.,  The  Greek  Testament,  vol  I.,  containing  the  Four  Gospels. 

New  York,  1859. 

Barclay,  J.  T.,  City  of  the  Great  King.    Philadelphia,  1858. 

Baurgarten,  M.,  Die  Geschichte  Jesu.     Braunschweig,  1859. 

Blkek,  F.,  Beitrage  zur  Evangelien  Kritik.     Berlin,  1846. 

Blikk,  F.,  Synoptische  Erkiarung  der  drei  ersten  Evangelien.     Leipzig, 

1862. 
Bloomfikld,  S.  T.,  Greek  Testament,  with  English  Notes.     Boston,  1887. 
Browne,  H.,  Ordo  Sseclorum.     London,  1844. 
Buchkr,  J.,  Das  Leben  Jesu  Christi.     Stuttgart,  1859. 

Clinton,  Hknrt  F.,  Fasti  Romani.     Oxford,  1845-1850. 

Di  Costa,  I.,  The  Four  Witnesses.     New  York,  1855. 

D«  Saclct,  Dead  Sea  and  Bible  Lands,  Trans.     London,  1854. 

Ebrard,  J.  H.  A.,  Wissenschaftliche  Kritik  der  Evangelischen  Geschichte. 
Erlangen,  1850. 


XX11  LIST   OF   AUTHORS   CITED. 

Ellicott,  C.  J. ,  Historical  Lectures  on  the  Life  of  Our  Lord.     London, 

1860. 
Ewald,  H.,  Drei  ersten  Evangelien.     Gottingen,  1850. 

44  Die  Alterthumer  des  Volkes  Israel.     Gottingen,  1864. 

44  Geschichte  Christus  und  seiner  Zeit.     Gottingen,  1857. 

Fairbairn,  P.,  Hermeneutical  Manual.     Philadelphia,  1859. 
Friedlieb,  J.  H.,  Archaologie  der  Leidensgeschichte.     Bonn,  1843. 
44  Geschichte  des  Lebens  Jesu  Christi.     Breslau,  1856. 

Gams,  Johannes  der  Taufer.     Tubingen,  1853. 
Greenleae,  S.,  Testimony  of  the  Evangelists.     Boston,  1846. 
Greswell,  E.,  Dissertations  upon  the  Principles  of  an  Harmony  of  the 
Gospels.     Oxford,  1837. 

Hackett,  H.  B.,  Illustrations  of  Scripture.     Boston,  1857. 
Hoemann,  R.,  Das  Leben  Jesu  nach  den  Apokryphen.     Leipzig,  1851. 
Huo,  J.  L.,  Introduction  to  New  Testament.     Trans.     Andover,  1836. 

Ideler,  C,  Handbuch  der  Mathematischen  und  Technischen  Chronologie. 
Berlin,  1825-1826. 

Jarvis,  S.  F.,  A  Chronological  Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Church. 

New  York,  1846. 
Jones,  J.,  Notes  on  Scripture.     Philadelphia,  1861. 

Kitto,  J.,  Life  of  Our  Lord.     New  York,  1853. 

Krafet,  C.  H.  A.,  Chronologie  und  Harmonic  der  vier  Evangelien.   Erlan- 
gen,  1848. 

Lange,  J.  P.,  Leben  Jesu.     Heidelberg,  1847. 

Laxce,   J.   P.,   Bibel  Werk :    Matthaus,   Markus,  Johannes.    Bielefeld, 

1857-1860. 
Lewin,  Thomas,  Jerusalem.     London,  1861. 

Lichtenstein,  F.  W.  J.,  Lebensgeschichte  des  Herrn.     Erlangen,  1866. 
Lynch,  W.  F.,  Exploration  of  the  Jordan  and  Dead  Sea.    Philadelphia, 

1849. 

Messiah,  The.     London,  1861. 

Meyer,  H.  A.  W.,  Commentar.    Die  Evangelien.     Gottingen,  1866-1858. 
Mill,  W.  H.,  The  Mythical  Interpretation  of  the  Gospels.    Cambridge, 
1861. 


LIST  OP  AUTHORS  CITED.  XX1U 

Milman,  H.  H.,  History  of  Christianity.    New  York,  1841. 
Morison,  J.  H.,  Notes  on  Matthew.     Boston,  1860. 

Nbander,  A.,  The  Life  of  Jesus  Christ.     Trans.     New  York,  1848. 
Newcome,  Bishop,  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  edited  by  Robinson.    An- 

dover,  1834. 
Norton,  A.,  Translation  of  the  Gospels,  with  Notes.     Boston,  1856. 

Oosterzee,  J.  J.,  Bibel  Werk :  Lukas.     Bielefeld,  1859. 
Osborne,  H.  S.,  Palestine,  Past  and  Present     Philadelphia,  1859. 
Owen,  J.  J.,  Commentaries  on  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke.    New  York, 
1858-1861. 

Patritiub,  F.X.,  De  Evangeliis:  Friburgi,  1858. 

Paulub,  H.  E.  G.,  Das  Leben  Jesu.     Heidelberg,  1828. 

Padlcs,  H.  E.  G.,  Exegetisches  Handbuch,  iiber  die  drei  ereten  Evange- 

lien.     Heidelberg,  1842. 
Porter,  J.  L.,  Handbook  for  Syria  and  Palestine.     London,  1858. 

Raumer,  Karl  ton,  Palastina.     Leipzig,  1860. 

Rioqenbach,  C.  J.,  Leben  Jesu.     Basel,  1858. 

Robinson,  E.,  Biblical  Researches  in  Syria  and  Palestine.     Boston,  1856. 

Robinson,  E.,  Harmony  of  the  Gospels.     Boston,  1845. 

Ritter,  Carl,  Die  Erdkunde  von  Asien.    Band  viii.  15th  u.  16th  Theile. 

Schappter,  A.,  Der  achte  Lage  des  Heiligen  Grabes.     Berne,  1849. 
Schwartz,  J.,  Geography  of  Palestine.     Philadelphia,  1850. 
Sepp,  J.  N.,  Das  Leben  Jesu.     Regensburg,  1853-1862. 
Smith,  W.,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  vol.  I.     London,  1860. 
Stanley,  A.  P.,  Sinai  and  Palestine.     New  York,  1857. 
Stewart,  R.  W.,  Tent  and  Khan.     Edinburgh,  1857. 
Stier,  R.,  The  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus.     Trans.     Edinburgh,  1855. 
Strono,  James,  Greek  Harmony  of  the  Gospels.     New  York,  1854. 
Strocd,  W.,  Physical  Cause  of  the  Death  of  Christ.     London,  1847. 

Thiersch,  H.  W.  J.,  Versuch  fur  die  Kritik  N.  T.     Erlangen,  1845. 
Thilo,  J.  C,  Codex  Apocryphus,  vol.  I.     Leipaic,  1832. 
Tholuck,  Commentary  on  St.  John.     Trans.     Philadelphia,  1859. 
Thomson,  W.  M.,  Land  and  Book.     New  York,  1859. 
Tischemdorp,  C,  Synopsis  Evangelica.     Lipsiac,  1854. 
Tobler,  T.,  Bethlehem.     Gallen  u.  Berne,  1849. 


XXIV  LIST   OP   AUTHORS   CITED. 

Toblkr,  T.,  Golgotha.    Seine  Kirchen  u.  Kloster.    Berne,  1851. 

14         Die  Siloahquelle  u.  der  Oelberg.     St  Gallen,  1852. 

44  Topographie  von  Jerusalem.     Berlin,  1853. 

44  Denkblatter  aus  Jerusalem.     Constanz,  1856. 

44  Dritte  Wanderung  nach  Palastina.     Gotha,  1859. 

Townsend,  G.,  The  New  Testament,  Arranged  in  Historical  and  Chrono- 
logical Order.     Revised  by  T.  W.  Goit.     Boston,  1837. 

Van  der  Velde,  C.  W.  M.,  Journey  through  Syria  and  Palestine.    Trans. 

Edinburgh,  1854. 
Van  deb  Velde.  C.  M.  W.,  Memoir  to  accompany  Map  of  Holy  Land. 

Gotha,  1858. 

Westcott,  B.  F.,  Introduction  to  Study  of  the  Gospels.     London,  1860. 

Wichelhaus,  J.,  Geschichte  des  Leidens  Jesu  Christi.     Halle,  1855. 

Wieseler,  K.,  Synopse  der  vier  Evangelien.     Hamburg,  1848. 

Williams,  G.,  The  Holy  City.     London,  1849. 

Williams,  I.,  Narrative  of  our  Lord's  Nativity.     London,  1844. 

Wilson,  J.,  Lands  of  the  Bible.     Edinburgh,  1847. 

Winer,  G.  B.,  Real  Worterbuch.     Leipzig,  1847. 

Winer,  G.  B.,  Grammatik  dcs  Ncutestamentlichen  Sprachidioms.  Sechste 

Auflage.     Leipzig,  1855. 
Wright,  T.,  Early  Travels  in  Palestine.     London,  1848. 

Occasional  references  are  made  to  the  valuable  articles  in  the  Real 
Encyklopadie  fur  Protestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche,  von  Dr.  Herzog, 
Hamburg,  1854-1862;  and  in  the  Kirchen  Lexicon,  oder  Encyklopadie 
der  Katholischer  Theologie,  von  Wetzer  und  Welte,  Friburg,  1847-1857. 


CHRONOLOGICAL    ESSAYS. 


[In  the  following  Essays,  and  throughout  this  work,  the  dates  are  given 
according  to  the  sera  beginning  with  the  building  of  Rome,  or  ah  urbe  con- 
dita ;  more  briefly,  u.  a  Reckoning  backward  from  Christ,  the  year  1  of 
Rome  corresponded  to  the  year  758  b.  c.  The  year  of  Rome  corresponding 
to  the  year  1  of  the  Christian  »ra,  was  754.  Hence,  to  obtain  the  year  of 
Rome  after  Christ,  we  must  add  to  758  the  number  in  question  :  thus  the  year 
80  a.  d.  would  correspond  to  758  +  80,  or  788.  If  we  would  obtain  the  year  of 
Rome  before  Christ,  we  must  subtract  the  number  in  question  from  754 :  thus 
if  Herod  died  4  years  before  the  Christian  sera  or  4  b.  c,  754-4  would  give 
750  of  Rome.  Always,  if  not  expressly  stated  to  the  contrary,  the  year  of 
Rome  is  to  be  understood.] 

DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  BIRTH. 

Wb  take  as  our  starting  point  in  this  inquiry  the  statement  of 
Matthew,  (ii.  1-9,)  that  Jesus  was  born  before  the  death  of  Herod 
the  Great.  We  must,  therefore,  first  ascertain  when  Herod  died. 
According  to  Josephus,1  "  he  died  the  fifth  day  after  he  had  caused 
Antipater  to  be  slain  ;  having  reigned  since  he  caused  Antigonus 
to  be  slain,  thirty-four  years,  but  since  he  had  been  declared  king 
by  the  Romans,  thirty-seven."  He  was  so  declared  king  in  714. 
This  would  bring  his  death  in  the  year  from  1st  Nisan  750  to 
1st  Nisan  751,  according  to  Jewish  computation,  at  the  age  of 
seventy. 

But  the  date  of  his  death  may  be  more  definitely  fixed.  Jo- 
sephus relates*  that  he  executed  the  insurgents,  Matthias  and  his 
companions,  on  the  night  of  an  eclipse  of  the  moon.  This  eclipse 
took  place,  as  has  been  ascertained  by  astronomical  calculations,' 

»  Antiq.,  17.  8.  1.  «  Antiq.,  17.  6.  4. 

*  Ideler,  Handbuch  Chronologie,  2.  391. 
1 


2  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

on  the  night  of  the  12th  and  13th  March,  750 ;  yet  he  was  dead 
before  the  5th  of  April,  for  the  Passover  of  that  year  fell  ui>on  the 
12th  April,  and  Josephus  states1  that  before  this  feast  his  son  and 
successor  Archelaus  observed  the  usual  seven  days'  mourning  for 
the  dead.  His  death  must  therefore  be  placed  between  the  13th 
March  and  4th  April,  750.  We  may  take  the  1st  of  April  as  an 
approximate  date.* 

How  long  before  Herod's  death  was  the  Lord  born?  The 
Evangelists  Matthew  and  Luke  relate  certain  events  that  occurred 
between  His  birth  and  Herod's  death,  His  circumcision  upon  the 
eighth  day,  the  presentation  at  the  Temple  dn  the  fortieth,  the 
visit  of  the  Magi,  the  flight  into  Egypt,  the  murder  of  the  Inno- 
cents. Whatever  view  may  be  taken  as  to  the  order  of  these  events, 
they  can  scarcely  have  occupied  less  than  two  months.  This 
would  bring  His  birth  into  January,  or  February  at  latest,  750. 

Having  thus  reached  a  fixed  period  in  one  direction,  and  ascer- 
tained that  nis  birth  cannot  be  placed  later  than  the  beginning  of 
750,  let  us  consider  the  data  that  limit  the  period  upon  the  other 
side.  And  the  first  of  these  we  find  in  the  statement  of  Luke, 
(ii.  1-6,)  that  He  was  born  after  the  edict  of  Augustus  that  all  the 
world  should  be  taxed.  In  obedience  to  this  edict,  his  parents 
went  to  Bethlehem  to  be  taxed,  and  there  He  was  born.  If,  now, 
we  can  ascertain  when  this  edict  went  into  effect  in  Judea  we  have 
another  fixed  period. 

It  is  known  from  Suetonius  and  from  the  Ancyranian  monu- 
ment, that  Augustus  three  times  instituted  a  census,  in  726,  746, 
and  767.'  Of  these  the  second  only  needs  to  be  considered.  But 
this  seems  to  have  been  confined  to  the  Italians  or  Romans,  cites 
Romani,  and  thus  a  census  citium*  and  not  to  have  extended  to  the 
provinces.5  It  cannot,  therefore,  have  been  the  taxing  of  Luke. 
That  Augustus  did  at  different  times  take  a  census  of  the  provinces 
is  well  established,  but  we  know  not  the  exact  periods.     As  we 

>  Antiq.,  17.  8.  4. 

8  Almost  all  chronologists  agree  in  putting  Herod's  death  in  750.  So 
Browne,  Sepp,  Wieseler,  Ammer,  Ewald,  Winer,  Hales,  Meyer.  Jarvis  puts 
it  in  March,  749 ;  Greswell,  April,  751 ;  Clinton  in  750  or  751. 

»  Sepp,  1.  139. 

«  Usher,  10.  458 ;  Greswell,  1.  536  and  4.  22. 

•  This,  however,  is  doubted  by  many.  Browne,  45 ;  Friedlieb,  53 ;  Sepp, 
1.  141.    See  Ewald.  5.  141. 


DATB  OF  THE  LORD'S  BIRTH.  3 

cannot,  then,  bring  the  taxing  of  Luke  into  any  direct  and  positive 
connection  with  the  census  of  746,  it  affords  us  no  certain  chrono- 
logical datum. 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  reach  a  positive  result  in  another 
way.  According  to  Tertullian,1  the  census  at  the  birth  of  Christ 
was  taken  by  Sentius  Saturninus.  Sed  et  census  constat  actos  sub 
Augusto  tunc  in  Judaea  per  Sent.  Saturninum,  apud  quos  genus 
ejus  inquirere  potestis.  It  is  said  that  this  necessarily  implies  that 
Saturninus  was  governor  of  Syria.  We  have  then  only  to  inquire 
when  he  was  thus  governor.  He  is  often  mentioned  by  Josephus." 
There  is  some  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  length  of  his  adminis- 
tration. Greswell  makes  it  to  extend  from  746-750,  but  most 
only  to  748.'  If,  then,  this  census  was  taken  by  Saturninus  as 
governor  of  Syria,  it  must  have  been  before  748,  and  consequently 
the  Lord's  birth  must  be  placed  as  early  as  747.4 

Against  this  it  may  be  said  that  Tertullian  stands  quite  alone  in 
this  statement,  and  is  at  variance,  not  only  with  St.  Luke,  but  with 
many  of  the  early  writers,  and  is  not  here  to  be  credited.*  Or  if 
it  be  admitted  as  correct,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  Saturninus 
was  governor  of  Syria  at  this  time ;  he  may  have  been  a  special 
commissioner  for  the  purpose."  The  supposition  of  Browne,  (47,) 
that  the  census  began  under  him  while  governor,  and  so  before 
748,  is  not  probable.  Patritius,  iii.  168,  makes  Saturninus  to 
have  been  governor  and  Cyrenius  legate  extraordinary,  and  both 
to  have  assisted  in  the  work ;  but  this  conflicts  with  Luke's  state- 
ment that  the  latter  was  governor  of  Syria.  In  either  case  we 
fail  to  fix  the  time  for  the  taxing  through  its  connection  with  him. 

We  now  turn  to  the  statement  of  Luke  (ii.  2) :  "  This  taxing 
was  first  made  when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria."  This  lan- 
guage is  susceptible  of  various  constructions,  which  will  be  here- 
after fully  considered.  We  are  concerned  with  it  here  only  in  its 
chronological  bearing  as  connected  with  Cyrenius.  If  it  be  read 
•  this  taxing  was  before  he  was  governor,"  or  "  this  taxing  first 
took  effect  when  he  was  governor,"  it  gives  us  no  aid  in  our  in- 

i  Adv.  Marc.,  4. 19. 

•  Antiq.,  16. 10.  8;  16.  11.  8 ;  17. 1.  1 ;  17.  2.  1 ;  17. 8.  2.    War.,  1.  27,  2  j 
1.  29.  8. 

>  Ideler,  Zumpt,  Sepp,  Ammer,  Browne. 

•  Patritius  and  many.  •  So  Friedlieb,  54.  •  So  Ammer,  18. 


4  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

quiry.  We  learn  from  Josephus1  that  after  Archelaus  was  de- 
posed, and  Jndea  annexed  to  Syria,  Oyrenius  was  sent  by  the 
Roman  emperor  as  governor  of  this  province,  and  then  instituted  a 
census.  But  this  was  not  earlier  than  758  or  760,  and  of  course 
cannot  be  the  taxing  mentioned  by  Luke ;  for  the  Lord  was  born, 
as  we  have  seen,  before  Herod's  death  in  750.  If,  however,  the 
right  interpretation  of  the  Evangelist's  words  is  that  which  makes 
this  taxing  to  have  been  the  first  as  distinguished  from  a  second, 
and  both  during  his  governorship ;  or  that  he  was  governor  when 
this  very  taxing  took  place,  the  question  arises,  was  Oyrenius  at 
any  period  earlier  than  758,  governor  of  Syria  ?  That  he  was  twice 
governor  was  asserted  by  Baronius ;  "  but  in  this,"  says  Lardner, 
11  he  is  deserted  by  all  learned  men."  *  Recently,  however,  the 
matter  has  been  more  thoroughly  discussed  by  Zumpt  in  his  essay 
de  Syria  Romanorum  provincial  We  shall,  therefore,  give  a  brief 
outline  of  the  point  as  it  now  lies  in  the  light  of  this  investigation. 
In  Josephus  the  names  of  several  persons  who  were  governors 
of  Syria  about  the  time  of  the  Lord's  birth  are  mentioned,  but  they 
are  mentioned  only  incidentally,  nor  is  the  list  complete.  Of  S. 
Saturninus,  whose  administration  ended  in  747,  we  have  already 
spoken.  He  was  followed  by  P.  Q  Varus.4  Varus  was  with 
Herod  at  the  trial  of  his  son  Antipater,  and  afterward  aided 
Archelaus  against  the  insurgent  Jews.5  He  was  therefore  in  office 
at  least  till  the  summer  of  750.  After  this  time  Josephus  makes 
no  mention  of  him,  nor  does  history  give  us  any  positive  informa- 
tion how  long  he  continued  in  office.  Of  what  took  place  during 
the  ten  years'  rule  of  Archelaus,  Josephus  says  very  little,  nor  does 
he  mention  the  name  of  any  other  Syrian  governor  till  Oyrenius, 
who  began  his  administration  after  Archelaus  had  been  deposed 
and  Judea  annexed  to  Syria.6  Archelaus  was  deposed  in  the  tenth 
year  of  his  reign,7  or  in  759.  That  Varus  did  not  act  as  governor 
during  all  this  interval,  is  probable  from  the  fact  that  it  was  a 
fixed  rule  with  Augustus  that  no  one  should  govern  a  province 

>  Antiq.,  18.  1.  1. 

•  1.  336.    For  a  full  discussion  of  the  grounds  taken  by  Baronius,  see 
Spanheim,  Dubia  Evangelica,  Pars  Secunda,  Dubium  t. 

•  In  the  2d  vol.  of  his  Comment.  Epigr.  ad  Antiq.  Rom.  pertinent. 
Berol,  1854. 

•  Antiq.,  17.  5.  2.  »  Antiq.,  17.  10.  9  and  10. 

•  Antiq.,  17.  13.  5;  18.  1.  1.  T  Antiq.,  17.  13.  2. 


DATE    OP  THE  LORD'S  BIRTH.  5 

more  than  five  years.1  A  coin  of  Antioch  proves  that  in  fact  in 
758  L.  V.  Saturninns  was  governor.  But  by  whom  was  this  office 
filled  from  750-758  ? 

It  is  at  this  point  that  the  researches  of  Zumpt  have  for  us 
special  importance.  In  his  list  of  Syrian  governors,  (ii.  149,)  ex- 
tending from  b.  o.  30  to  a.  d.  66,  we  find  the  interval  from  748- 
758  thus  filled :  P.  Q.  Varus,  748-750  or  6-4  b.  o.  P.  S.  Qurinius 
(Oyrenius)  750-758  or  4-1  b.  o.  M.  Lollius,  753-757  or  1  b.  o.  to 
8  a.  d.  C.  M.  Censor  in  us  757-758  or  3-4  a.  d.  After  Oensorinus 
follows  L.  V.  Saturninns,  already  mentioned,  from  758-760  or  4-6 
a.  d.,  who  is  succeeded  by  P.  S.  Qurinius  for  the  second  time.  This 
second  administration  extends  from  760-765  or  6-1 1  a.  d.  If  Zumpt 
be  right  in  this  order,  Cyrenius  was  twice  governor  of  Syria,  but 
we  are  now  concerned  only  with  his  first  administration,  or  that 
from  750-753.    Upon  what  ground  does  this  statement  rest  ? 

Our  chief  knowledge  of  Cyrenius  is  derived  from  Tacitus.*  He 
was  of  low  origin,  a  bold  soldier,  and  attained  a  consulship  nnder 
Augustus  in  742,  and  was  afterward  proconsul  in  the  province  of 
Africa.  After  this  he  conquered  the  Homonadenses,  a  rude  people 
living  in  Cilicia,  and  obtained  a  triumph.  He  was  subsequently 
made  rector  to  Caius  Cmsar  when  the  latter  was  appointed  gov- 
ernor of  Armenia.  At  what  time  and  in  what  capacity  did  he 
carry  on  the  war  against  the  Homonadenses  ?  The  time  is  thus 
determined  :  He  was  consul  in  742.  As  it  was  a  rule  with  Augus- 
tus to  send  no  one  sooner  than  five  years  after  his  consulship  as 
legate  to  a  province,  he  could  not  have  been  in  Africa  earlier  than 
747.  But  he  was  made  rector  to  O.  Orosar  in  753,  after  the  war 
against  the  Homonadenses,  so  that  this  war  was  between  747  and 
758.  In  what  capacity  did  he  carry  it  on  ?  Probably  as  govern- 
or of  Syria.  It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that  at  this  time 
there  were  two  classes  of  provinces,  the  one  under  the  immediate 
control  of  the  Emperor,  the  other  under  the  control  of  the  Senate. 
The  governors  of  the  imperial  provinces  were  called  Legates  or 
ProprsBtore,  and  continued  in  office  during  the  pleasure  of  the 
Emperor ;  those  of  the  Senatorial  provinces,  Proconsuls,  whose  au- 
thority lasted  only  for  one  year.  Syria  and  Cilicia  were  both 
provinces  of  the  former  kind,  and  administered  by  propraetors. 
The  Homonadenses  were  a  people  living  in  Cilicia,  but  Cilicia  be- 

i  Greawell,  1.  607.  *  Ann.,  8.  48. 


6  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

longed  from  25  b.  o.  down  to  the  time  of  Vespasian  to  the  province 
of  Syria.  As  Cyrenius  had  been  proconsul  in  Africa,  and  as  it  was 
a  rule  that  the  same  person  should  not  be  ruler  over  more  than 
one  of  the  consular  or  praotorian  provinces  under  the  care  of  the 
Senate,  he  could  not  have  been  governor  of  any  of  the  provinces 
immediately  adjacent — Asia,  Pontus,  Bithynia,  Galatia ;  he  must 
then  have  been  acting  as  governor  of  the  province  of  Syria  and  as 
legate  of  the  Emperor. 

We  cannot  here  enter  into  an  investigation  of  the  many  intri- 
cate questions  which  belong  to  this  point,  and  which  are  fully  dis- 
cussed by  Zumpt.1  The  result  of  all  is  that  Cyrenius  became  gov- 
ernor of  Syria  as  the  successor  of  Varus  toward  the  end  of  750,  and 
continued  in  office  till  753. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  Zumpt  demonstrates  that  Cyrenius  was 
twice  governor  of  Syria,  but  he  certainly  makes  it  highly  prob- 
able.' It  is  indeed  possible  that  he  was  acting  in  the  East  at  the 
time  of  the  Lord's  birth  as  legate  extraordinary,  or  as  head 
of  the  census  commission  for  Syria  and  the  East.'  As,  however, 
Luke's  language  seems  to  mean  that  he  did  act  as  governor  of 
Syria  at  this  time,  and  as  he  is  confirmed  in  this  by  many  of  the 
earliest  Christian  writers,  the  burden  of  proof  lies  upon  those  who 
dispute  his  accuracy.  As  the  case  now  stands,  we  may  assume  that 
Cyrenius  was  so  governor  from  the  end  of  750  till  758. 

But  the  exact  chronological  value  of  this  fact,  in  its  bearing 
upon  the  date  of  the  Lord's  birth,  still  remains  to  be  considered. 
If,  as  we  have  seen,  Herod  died  in  the  spring  of  750,  and  after 
Christ's  birth,  and  Cyrenius  was  not  governor  till  the  autumn  of 
that  year,  how  can  it  be  said  that  this  taxing  took  place  under  him  ? 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  census  began  under  Varus,  748- 
750,  and  before  Herod's  death ;  but  if  in  consequence  of  this  death 
and  of  the  popular  disturbance  that  followed,  it  was  for  a  time 
suspended  and  its  execution  was  reserved  to  Cyrenius,  it  would 
very  naturally  be  connected  with  his  name.  It  is  not  improb- 
able also  that  so  long  as  Herod  lived  he  appeared  as  the  chief  agent 

1  An  abstract  of  his  argument  may  be  found  in  Fairbairn,  Her.  Man.,  507 ; 
in  Friedlieb,  Leben  Jesu,  57 ;  and  a  brief  notice  in  Alford,  vol.  i.,  Proleg.  p.  50. 

a  Merivale,  however,  (Roman  Hist.,  4.  456,)  calls  it  "the  demonstration, 
as  it  seems  to  be." 

a  See  Ewald,  5.  140,  note ;  Browne,  45. 


DATS  OF  THE   LORD'S  BIRTH.  7 

in  its  execution ;  and  only  after  his  death  did  the  Roman  governor 
take  a  prominent  part.  It  is  also  not  improbable  that,  as  Herod's 
death  materially  changed  the  relations  in  which  Judea  stood  to  the 
empire,  Justin  Martyr's1  allusion  to  Oyrenius  as  first  procurator 
of  Judea  may  refer  to  his  more  active  interference  in  Jewish 
affairs.'  We  conclude,  then,  that  the  taxing  of  Luke,  and  so  the 
Lord's  birth,  was  in  the  latter  part  of  749  or  beginning  of  750.* 

The  statement  of  St.  Luke,  (iii.  23,)  "  Aud  Jesus  himself  began 
to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age,"  is  to  be  considered.4  This  pas- 
sage may  be  variously  interpreted.*  According  to  some  it  means, 
"Jesus  was,"  at  this  time  of  Ilis  baptism,  M  beginning  to  be  about 
thirty  years  of  age,"  *.  «.,  He  was  almost  but  not  quite  thirty.6 
Greswell  affirms  that  this  was  the  universal  interpretation  of  the 
words  by  the  Greek  fathers.'  According  to  most  modern  inter- 
preters the  meaning  is,  "  Jesus  was  about  thirty  when  He  began 
His  ministry."  *  We  have,  then,  taking  the  latter  as  the  right  con- 
struction, to  ask  how  great  latitude  is  to  be  given  to  the  expression 
"  about  thirty."  According  to  some  it  is  to  be  understood  as  a 
round  or  indefinite  number,  embracing  any  age  between  twenty- 
five  and  thirty-five.  But  when  we  consider  how  short  was  the 
Lord's  ministry,  this  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable.  Accord- 
ing to  others,  it  permits  a  latitude  of  two  or  three  years.9  But 
even  this  latitude  is  hardly  justified  by  Luke's  use  of  language.10 
The  more  natural  construction  is  that  the  Lord  was  some  months 
or  parts  of  a  year  more  or  less  than  thirty.  He  was  not  just 
thirty,  nor  twenty-nine,  nor  thirty-one.  Still  it  cannot  be  posi- 
tively affirmed  that  the  Evangelist  does  not  use  it  in  a  larger  sense. 

1  Apol.  1,  c.  84.  *  Friedlieb,  Leben  Jesu,  60. 

•  So  Men  vale,  4. 457.  "  It  would  appear  from  hence  that  our  Lord's  birth 
wu  750,  or  749  at  the  earliest." 

«  The  reading  of  Teschendorf,  Kat  avros  t\v  o  lri<rovs  apxofityos  «<rc», 
4c,  does  not  materially  affect  the  sense.    See  Wieseler,  123. 

•  See  Jarvis,  624. 

•  So  Lightfoot,  3.  85;  Greswell,  1.  867;  Bloomfield  in  loco. 
7  See,  however,  Patritius,  iii.  388. 

•  So  Meyer,  Alford,  Norton,  De  Wette,  Wieseler,  Tischendorf,  Robinson. 

•  So  Ammer,  Alford. 

10  We  give  for  comparison  all  the  passages  where  caret  is  used  by  him  in 
connection  with  numerals :  Gospel,  i.  56 ;  ix.  14 ;  ix.  28 ;  xxii.  59 ;  xxiii.  44 ; 
Acta  of  Apostles,  L  15;  ii.  41;  iv.  4;  v.  36;  x.  8;  xix.  7. 


8  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAYS. 

The  argument  that  He  was  thirty  at  this  time,  because  the 
priests  at  this  age  begau  their  ministry,1  has  little  force.  The  law 
(Num.  iv.  3)  has  reference  only  to  Levites,  and  the  age  when  the 
priests  began  to  serve  is  not  known.1  Besides,  Jesus  was  not  a 
priest,  although  the  Baptist  was." 

If  we  assume  that  the  Lord  was  about  thirty  at  the  beginning 
of  His  ministry,  we  must,  to  make  this  datum  useful  in  our  present 
inquiry,  ascertain  in  what  year  this  ministry  began.  This,  it  is 
said,  we  are  able  to  do  through  the  words  spoken  by  the  Jews  at 
Jerusalem  in  reply  to  His  parable  respecting  the  temple  of  His 
body,  (John  ii.  20.)  "  Then  said  the  Jews,  Forty  and  six  years  was 
this  temple  in  building,  and  wilt  thou  rear  it  up  in  three  days  f " 
This  building,  or  rather  rebuilding,  of  the  temple  was  begun  by 
Herod  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign,  or  during  the  year  from 
Nisan  734  to  Nisan  735.*  The  forty-sixth  year  following  was 
from  Nisan  780-781.  It  is  admitted  that  the  temple  was  not  fin- 
ished till  818.6  But  from  what  point  of  time  are  the  forty-six 
years  to  be  reckoned  backward  ?  The  words  may  be  rendered  as 
by  Lightfoot,  "  Forty  and  six  years  hath  this  temple  been  in  build- 
ing." •  Up  to  this  time,  the  Passover,  when  the  words  were  spoken, 
the  work  had  continued  and  was  not  yet  ended.  But  is  the  forty- 
sixth  year  to  be  taken  as  current,  or  as  completed  ?  If  the  latter, 
the  Passover  was  that  of  781 ; T  if  the  former,  it  was  that  of  780.* 
Some,  however,  understand  the  words,  "In  forty  and  six  years 
was  this  temple,"  all  that  is  yet  finished,  "  built."  Tholuck  (in 
loco)  observes,  "  We  may  suppose  that  at  this  time,  probably  after 
the  completion  of  some  main  part  of  the  edifice,  a  cessation  in  the 
building  had  taken  place."  9  If  this  interpretation  be  right  the 
passage  loses  all  its  chronological  value,  as  it  is  impossible  to  tell 
how  long  the  forty-six  years  had  been  completed. 

All,  therefore,  that  this  passage  gives  us  is  a  probability  that 
the  Lord's  first  Passover  was  that  of  780  or  781.  The  former  is  to 
be  preferred.  If,  then,  he  was  about  thirty  at  this  time,  but  not  a 
year  more  or  less,  his  birth  would  be  about  750.  The  Passover  of 
780  fell  upon  the  9th  April.     His  baptism  was  a  few  weeks  earlier 

»  So  Lightfoot,  Jarvis.  «  Winer,  2.  269.  •  Ores.,  1.  874. 

*  Josephus,  Antiq.,  15.  11.  1.  •  Josephus,  Antiq.,  20.  9,  7. 

•  So  Greswell,  Norton,  Bloom.  r  So  Meyer,  Wieseler,  Tisch.,  Lange. 
8  So  Lardner,  Licht.,  Friedlieb.  •  So  Olshausen,  Ewald. 


DATE  OF  THE  LOED'S  BIETH.  9 

than  this,  for  there  intervened  the  temptation  of  forty  days,  His 
return  to  Jordan,  His  visit  to  Cana  and  to  Capernaum,  and  journey 
to  Jerusalem.  Allowing  two  or  three  months  for  all  this,  His  bap- 
tism was  in  the  last  of  779,  or  beginning  of  780.  If  we  suppose 
Him  to  have  been  just  thirty  at  His  baptism,  His  birth  mnst  be 
placed  in  the  last  of  749,  or  beginning  of  750.  If;  then,  for  reasons 
already  given,  we  cannot  interpret  "  about  thirty  "  as  a  wholly  in- 
definite expression,  but  mnst  understand  it  as  meaning  that  He  was 
some  months  more  or  less  than  thirty,  we  cannot  place  His  birth 
earlier  than  the  middle  of  749. 

Still  another  datum  is  the  visit  of  the  Magi.  This,  as  we  learn 
from  Matthew,  (ch.  ii.,)  was  before  the  death  of  Herod,  and  so 
before  April,  750.  How  long  an  interval  elapsed  between  their 
coming  and  his  death  is  matter  of  inference.  Their  arrival  at  Je- 
rusalem cannot,  however,  well  be  placed  later  than  February,  750. 
At  this  time  Herod  was  there,  (Matt.  ii.  1-7,)  but  at  the  eclipse  of 
the  moon,1  March  12-13,  he  was  at  Jericho,  where  he  subsequently 
died.  If,  then,  the  Magi  came  in  February,  the  Lord's  birth  must 
have  taken  place  some  time  earlier,  as  early  at  least  as  the  be- 
ginning of  750. 

The  cause  of  the  coming  of  the  Magi  to  Jerusalem  was  the  ap- 
pearing of  a  star,  which  in  some  way,  whether  by  astrology,  or 
tradition,  or  by  direct  divine  revelation,  they  knew  to  indicate  the 
birth  of  the  King  of  the  Jews.  If  this  star  were  a  real  star,  sub- 
ject to  the  ordinary  laws  which  rule  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  the 
time  of  its  appearing  could  be  determined  astronomically,  we  should 
find  in  it  a  most  valuable  chronological  aid.  But  many  regard  it 
as  wholly  supernatural,  a  luminous  body  like  a  star  specially  pre- 
pared by  God  for  this  end ;  and  others  as  a  new  star,  that,  after 
shining  awhile  in  the  heavens,  totally  disappeared ;  and  others 
still,  as  a  comet.*  If  either  of  these  suppositions  be  correct,  it 
gives  us  no  chronological  datum.  But  a  considerable  number  of 
modern  commentators  are  inclined  to  regard  it  as  a  conjunction  of 
planets,  and  its  time  thus  capable  of  determination.  This  hypoth- 
esis was  first  advanced  by  Kepler,  whose  attention  was  turned  to 
the  matter  by  a  similar  conjunction  at  the  close  of  1603,  a.  d.    In  De- 

»  Josephus,  Antiq.,  17.  6.  4. 

*  Winer,  2.  528.    Trench,  Star  of  the  Wise  Men,  28.    Spanheim,  Dubia 
Erangelica,  Para  Secunda. 
1* 


10  CHBONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

cember  of  that  year  Saturn  and  Jupiter  were  in  conjunction,  and 
to  them  in  the  spring  following  Mars  was  added.  In  the  autumn 
of  1604,  a  new  star  of  distinguished  brilliancy  appeared,  which, 
however,  soon  began  to  fade,  and  finally,  at  the  end  of  1605,  van- 
ished from  sight.  His  attention  thus  aroused,  Kepler  found  by 
computation  that  during  the  year  747  of  Rome,  the  planets  Jupiter 
and  Saturn  three  times  came  into  conjunction.  These  computa- 
tions, as  corrected  by  Ideler,1  show  these  conjunctions  to  have 
taken  place  on  20th  May,  27th  Oct.,  and  12th  Nov.  of  that  year, 
all  in  the  sign  of  Pisces.  At  the  first  conjunction  they  were  only 
one  degree  removed,  in  the  two  latter  were  so  near  that  both 
planets  appeared  to  a  weak  eye  as  one.*  In  the  spring  of  748,  to 
these  conjunctions  Mars  was  added,  and  from  some  Chinese  astro- 
nomical records  it  has  been  affirmed  that  a  comet  was  visible  from 
February  to  April,  749,  and  again  in  April,  750." 

Those  who  regard  these  planetary  conjunctions  as  the  star  of 
Matthew,  are  by  no  means  agreed  as  to  their  chronological  bearing. 
Kepler  placed  the  Lord's  birth  in  748,  reckoning  from  the  con- 
junction of  the  three  planets  in  the  spring  of  that  year,  or  from 
the  supposed  appearance  of  a  new  star  in  the  autumn,  whilst  the 
two  planets  were  still  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  each  other. 
Ideler,  rejecting  the  new  star  of  Kepler  and  looking  only  to  the 
conjunctions,  puts  Ilis  birth  in  747.  Ebrard,  though  adopting  the 
same  date,  supposes  with  Kepler  that  the  star  of  Matthew  was  a 
new  star  which  appeared  at  the  same  time.  Wieseler  makes  it  to 
have  been  the  Chinese  comet  which  appeared  in  749  and  750,  and 
therefore  places  His  birth  early  in  750. 

It  is  not  consistent  with  our  present  purpose  to  enter  into  a 
discussion  of  the  many  questions  connected  with  the  star  of  the 
wise  men.  The  fact  that  such  conjunctions  should  have  taken 
place  so  near  the  time  when  we  know  from  other  sources  that  the 
Lord  was  born,  and  in  that  sign  Pisces,  which,  according  to  the 
Jewish  Rabbi,  Abarbanel,  who  wrote  half  a  century  before  Kep- 
ler,4 was  of  special  significance  to  the  Jews,  is  in  itself  remarkable, 
but  leads  to  no  definite  chronological  results.  It  is  at  best  doubt- 
ful whether  any  conjunction  of  planets  could  answer  to  the  state- 
ments of  Matthew  respecting  the  star.     Ideler's  assertion  that  the 

»  Handbuch  Chronologie,  2.  406.  »  Ideler,  2.  407. 

»  See  Wieseler,  69.  *  Amsterdam,  1547. 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  BIBTH.  11 

two  planets  were  so  near  together  as  to  appear  as  one,  is  denied 
by  Rev.  C.  Pritchard.1  "Mr.  Pritchard  finds,  and  his  calculations 
have  been  verified  and  confirmed  at  Greenwich,  that  this  conjunc- 
tion occurred  not  on  Nov.  12,  but  early  on  Dec.  5  ;  that  even  with 
Ideler's  somewhat  strange  postulate  of  an  observer  with  weak  eyes, 
the  planets  could  never  have  appeared  as  one  star,  for  they  never 
approached  each  other  within  double  the  apparent  diameter  of  the 
moon."  Alford,  on  the  other  hand,  assuming  that,  on  the  last  two 
conjunctions,  "  the  planets  were  so  near  that  an  ordinary  eye  would 
regard  them  as  one  star  of  surpassing  brightness,"  proceeds  to  show 
how  they  may  have  guided  the  Magi  on  their  journey.  "  Suppos- 
ing the  Magi  to  have  seen  the  first  of  these  conjunctions,  they  saw 
it  actually  'in  the  East,'  for  on  the  20th  May  it  would  rise 
shortly  before  the  sun.  If  they  then  took  their  journey,  and  ar- 
rived at  Jerusalem  in  a  little  more  than  five  months,  (the  journey 
from  Babylon  took  Ezra  four  months,)  if  they  performed  the  route 
from  Jerusalem  to  Bethlehem  in  the  evening,  as  is  implied,  the 
November  conjunction,  in  15°  of  Pisces,  would  be  before  them  in 
the  direction  of  Bethlehem,  coming  to  the  meridian  about  eight 
o'clock  p.  m.  These  circumstances  would  seem  to  form  a  remark- 
able coincidence  with  the  history  in  our  text."  If  these  observa- 
tions were  well  founded,  the  Lord's  birth  must  be  placed  in  747. 
In  this  result  Alexander  agrees,  (On  Matt.  ii.  2.)  "  The  concur- 
rence is  in  this  case  so  remarkable,  and  the  explanation  recom- 
mended by  such  high  scientific  authority,  that  it  would  probably 
have  been  universally  adopted  but  for  the  foregone  conclusion  in  the 
minds  of  many  that  the  birth  of  Christ  took  place  in  a  different 
year.  But  that  assumption  is  so  doubtful,  and  the  views  of  the 
best  writers  so  discordant,  that  it  can  scarcely  be  allowed  to  decide 
the  question  now  before  us,  but  may  rather  be  decided  by  it." 

Notwithstanding  the  weighty  names  that  may  be  cited  in  sup- 
port of  this  explanation,  it  must,  we  think,  be  admitted  that  the 
whole  tenor  of  Matthew's  narrative  points  strongly  to  some  extra- 
ordinary luminous  appearance  in  the  form  of  a  star,  which,  having 
served  its  purpose  of  guiding  the  Magi  to  Jesus,  vanished  forever. 
That  the  use  of  aarqp  rather  than  aarpov  indicates  a  single  star 
is  apparent.*  But  these  conjunctions  did  not  appear  at  any  time 
as  a  single  star,  nor  can  we  well  apply  to  them  the  language  which 
•  See  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  1.  1072.  ■  See  Meyer. 


12  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

the  Evangelist  uses  of  the  movements  of  his  star,  (ii.  9.)  If  this 
be  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  narrative,  it  does  not,  however, 
exclude  the  astrological  value  of  these  conjunctions.  The  Magi 
were  students  of  the  heavens,  and  such  remarkable  phenomena 
would  naturally  attract  their  observation.  Precisely  what  signifi- 
cance they  would  ascribe  to  them  we  cannot  say,  but  doubtless  in 
their  astrology  they  indicated  some  remarkable  event.  Perhaps, 
also,  the  meeting  of  the  planets  in  Pisces  turned  their  attention 
especially  to  Syria  and  Judea.  We  may  thus  at  least  suppose  that 
through  the  planetary  conjunctions  their  attention  was  arrested, 
and  they  prepared  to  watch  the  heavens  with  deep  interest  for 
further  signs,  and  to  note  the  new  star  so  soon  as  it  appeared. 
How  they  knew  it  to  be  the  star  of  u  the  King  of  the  Jews,"  does 
not  here  concern  us.  All  this  still  leaves  undetermined  the  time 
of  the  appearing  of  the  star,  but  indicates  that  it  must  have  been 
after  the  conjunctions,  or  subsequent  to  Dec.  747.  Yet  it  was 
some  time  before  Herod's  death  in  750. 

Many  have  found  a  more  definite  chronological  datum  in  the 
statement  of  Matthew  (ii.  16)  that  Herod,  after  the  departure  of  the 
Magi,  slew  all  the  children  of  Bethlehem  "  from  two  years  old  and 
under,  according  to  the  time  which  he  had  diligently  inquired  of 
the  wise  men,"  (see  v.  7.)  It  is  said  that  the  first  appearing  of  the 
star  marked  the  Saviour's  birth;  that  the  command  to  slay  the 
children  "  from  two  years  old  and  under,"  shows  that  more  than  a 
year  had  elapsed  since  its  appearing ;  and  that,  consequently,  He 
must  have  been  at  that  time  in  His  second  year.1  But  this  is  by 
no  means  conclusive.  It  is  not  certain  that  the  appearing  of  the 
star  marked  the  Saviour's  birth.  It  may  have  preceded  it  and 
marked  the  Incarnation,  which  the  early  church  connected  with 
the  Annunciation,  not  with  the  Nativity.  If  so,  the  star  may 
have  been  seen  in  747,  yet  His  birth  have  been  in  748 ;  or  the  star 
in  748,  and  His  birth  in  749.  Nor  does  the  fact  that  Herod  slew 
all  the  children  from  two  years  and  under,  give  us  any  exact  result. 
This  expression  is  in  itself  remarkable,  and  indicates  that  two  years 
was  the  extreme  beyond  which  the  king  did  not  think  it  necessary 
to  go,  and  that  in  all  probability  Jesus  was  much  younger.  "  This 
does  not  imply  that  Jesus  was  just  two  years  old  at  this  time,  but 
rather  that  He  was  not,  as  appears  from  the  word  under."  *    He 

1  So  Meyer.  *  Alexander. 


DATE   OP   THE   LORD'S   BIRTH.  13 

would  be  sure  that  the  child  should  not  escape,  and  therefore  en- 
larged the  time,  taking  in  those  of  greater  age  than  he  had  any 
reason  to  suppose  Him  to  be.  It  is  plain  that  he  did  not  learn 
from  the  Magi  the  date  of  His  birth,  or  any  close  approximation 
to  it,  for  if  He  had  just  been  born,  why  kill  the  children  of  two 
years,  and  if  He  were  now  more  than  a  year,  why  kill  all  of  a  less 
age?  Thus  from  this  expression  we  may  infer  that  Jesus  was 
only  recently  born.1  This  is  confirmed  by  the  scope  of  the  narrative 
which  implies  that  the  Magi  came  soon  after  his  birth.  If  we 
suppose  that  the  star  announcing  the  Incarnation  appeared  to  the 
Magi  early  in  749,  and  place  their  visit  in  the  beginning  of  750, 
Herod,  ignorant  what  relation  the  time  of  its  appearing  had  to 
Christ's  birth,  might  well  have  ordered  that  all  the  children  of 
Bethlehem  born  in  749  and  up  to  this  time  in  750,  should  be  slain ; 
and  this  would  correspond  to  the  u  two  years  and  under  "  of  the 
Evangelist 

Whilst,  then,  we  cannot  reach  any  precise  chronological  results 
from  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  we  may  perhaps  say  that  the  conjunc- 
tions of  the  planets  define  the  earliest  period  at  which  the  Lord's 
birth  can  be  placed.  We  thus  gain  the  two  termini  between  which 
He  was  born :  the  planetary  conjunctions  in  747,  and  the  death  of 
Herod  in  750. 

Still  another  datum  on  which  some  rely  is  the  existence  of 
general  peace  throughout  the  world  at  the  Lord's  birth.  This 
peace  is  supposed  to  have  been  foretold  by  the  prophets,  and  its 
realization  announced  by  the  angels  in  their  song  on  the  night  of 
the  nativity,  (Luke  ii.  14,)  "  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on 
earth  peace,  good  will  toward  men."  With  this  is  joined  the  closing 
of  the  temple  of  Janus  by  Augustus,  the  sign  of  peace  throughout 
the  Roman  Empire.  It  is  known  that  this  temple  was  twice  closed 
by  him,  in  725,  729,  and  probably  also  a  third  time,  though  the 
year  is  not  certainly  determined.  "  We  know  no  more  concerning 
it  than  this :  that  744  sub  ftnem^  it  was  intended  to  have  taken 
place,  but  was  delayed  a  little  longer  by  some  unimportant  cora- 


1  Oreswell,  2. 185,  would  understand  by  children  of  two  years  those  of 
thirteen  months  only.  All  older  than  this  were  exempt.  But  this  is  doubt- 
ful, and  is  unnecessary.  Browne,  Ordo  Saeclorum,  52,  explains  Herod's  or- 
der from  the  fact  the  star  appeared  two  years  before  the  nativity. 


14  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

motions  among  the  Daci  and  Dalmatae." '  In  the  absence  of  exact 
information,  we  can  say  no  more  than  that  there  was  a  period  of 
general  tranquillity  throughout  the  Roman  world  for  five  or  six 
years,  or  probably  from  746  to  752,  during  which  period  the  Lord 
was  born.  We  cannot,  without  building  on  conjecture,  reach  any 
more  exact  result. 

To  sum  up  the  results  of  our  inquiries,  we  find  that  the  birth 
of  the  Lord  was  not  later  than  April,  750,  and  probably  not  later 
than  January.  The  time  in  this  direction  is  limited  by  the  death 
of  Herod  in  April  of  that  year,  and  the  events  immediately  pre- 
ceding it.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  give  to  the  conjunction  of  planets 
in  747,  as  conneoted  with  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  any  chronological 
value,  we  cannot  put  his  birth  earlier  than  that  year.  Again,  if 
Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria  from  the  autumn  of  750-753,  we 
must  put  it  as  near  as  possible  to  the  beginning  of  his  administra- 
tion. And  as  He  was  about  thirty  years  of  age  at  the  beginning 
of  His  ministry,  and  the  date  of  His  first  Passover  after  its  begin- 
ning was  780,  we  reach  the  year  749.  We  have  thus  to  choose 
between  the  years  747,  748,  749,  and  the  beginning  of  750.  The 
probabilities  are  in  favor  of  749,  and  in  our  further  examinations 
we  shall  assume  this  as  the  year  of  His  birth. 

We  add  the  opinions  of  some  of  the  leading  chronologists  and 
commentators.*  For  the  year  747,  Sanclemente,  Wurm,  Ideler, 
Mtlnter,  Sepp,  Jar  vis,  Alford,  Patritius,  Ebrard  ;  for  748,  Kepler ; 
Lardner  hesitates  between  748  and  749  ;  for  749,  Petavius,  Usher, 
Noris,  Tillemont,  Lichtenstein,  Ammer,  Friedlieb,  Bucher,  Browne ; 
for  750,  Lamy,  Bengel,  Wieseler,  Greswell,  Ellicott.  Clinton  finds 
the  earliest  possible  date  the  autumn  of  748,  the  latest  that  of  750. 
The  years  751,  752,  and  753  have  also  their  supporters,  but  not 
among  the  more  recent  writers,  with  one  or  two  exceptions. 

We  proceed  to  inquire  in  what  part  of  the  year  the  Lord  was 
born.  The  only  direct  datum  which  the  Gospels  give  us,  is  found 
in  the  statement  of  Luke,  (i.  5,)  that  Zacharias  "  was  of  the  course 
of  Abia."    It  is  known  that  the  priests  were  divided  into  twenty- 

1  Greswell,  1.  469.  See  Patritius,  iii.  165.  According  to  Sepp  and  Browne, 
it  was  closed  from  746-752 ;  to  Ammer  and  Greswell  from  748  or  749-752  or 
753  ;  to  Jarvis  from  746-758.  Wieseler  makes  the  order  to  shut  it  to  have 
issued  in  743,  but  its  execution  to  have  been  delayed  till  752. 

»  See  Friedlieb,  Leben  Jesu,  91 ;  Wieseler,  485. 


DATE  OP  THE  LORD'S  BIRTH.  15 

four  classes,  each  of  which  officiated  at  the  temple  in  its  turn  for 
a  week.1  This  order,  originally  established  by  David,  was  broken 
up  by  the  captivity.  The  four  classes  that  returned  from  Babylon 
were  divided  anew  by  Ezra  into  twenty-four,  to  which  the  old 
names  were  given.  Another  interruption  was  made  by  the  inva- 
sion of  Antiochus,  but  the  old  order  was  restored  by  the  Maccabees. 
Of  these  courses  that  of  Jehoiarib  was  the  first,  that  of  Abia  the 
eighth.  We  need  therefore  only  to  know  a  definite  time  at  which 
any  one  of  the  courses  was  officiating  to  be  able  to  trace  the  suc- 
cession. Such  a  datum  we  find  in  the  Talmudical  statements,  sup- 
ported by  Josephus,*  that  at  the  destruction  of  the  temple  by 
Titus  on  the  5th  August,  823,  the  first  class  had  just  entered  on 
its  course.  Its  period  of  service  was  from  the  evening  of  the  4th 
August,  which  was  the  sabbath,  to  the  evening  of  the  following 
sabbath,  on  the  11th  August.  We  can  now  easily  compute  back- 
ward, and  ascertain  at  what  time  in  any  given  year  each  class  was 
officiating. 

If  now  we  take  the  year  749  as  the  probable  year  of  Christ's 
birth,  the  appearance  of  the  angel  to  Zacharias  announcing  John's 
birth  must  be  placed  in  748.  In  this  year  we  find  by  computation 
that  the  course  of  Abia,  or  the  eighth  course,  officiated  during  the 
weeks  from  the  17-23  April  and  again  from  the  3-9  October.' 
At  each  of  these  periods,  therefore,  was  Zacharias  at  Jerusalem. 
If  the  annunciation  of  the  angel  was  made  to  him  during  the  for- 
mer, the  birth  of  John  may  be  placed  near  the  beginning  of  749, 
and  the  Lord's  birth  about  six  months  later,  or  near  the  middle  of 
749 ;  if  the  annunciation  was  made  during  the  latter,  John's  birth 
was  near  the  middle  of  749,  and  the  Lord's  birth  near  its  end. 

The  fact  that  we  do  not  know  how  soon  after  the  completion 
of  the  ministry  of  Zacharias  the  conception  of  John  is  to  be  placed, 
prevents  any  very  exact  statement  of  dates.  Luke  (i.  24)  uses  only 
the  general  expression  u  after  those  days  his  wife  Elisabeth  con- 
ceived." Yet  the  tenor  of  the  narrative  leads  us  to  believe  that  it 
was  soon  after  his  return  to  his  home,  and  may  be  placed  in  either 
of  the  months  April  or  October.    Counting  onward  fifteen  months 

l  1  Chron.,  24.  1-19 ;  Lightfoot,  9.  44.  •  War,  6.  4.  5. 

•  So  Wieseler,  143 ;  Licht.,  76 ;  Friedlieb,  80 ;  Br«wne,  35.  Greswell,  1. 
484,  Sept.  80— Oct  7. 


16  CHBONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

we  reach  June  and  December,  in  one  of  which  the  Lord's  birth  is 
thus  to  be  placed. 

In  choosing  between  these  periods,  some  weight  is  to  be  given 
to  the  statement  of  Luke  (ii.  8)  that  in  the  night  when  the  Lord 
was  born,  shepherds  were  in  the  field  keeping  watch  over  their 
flock.  Does  not  this  rather  point  to  the  summer,  than  to  the  win- 
ter, to  June  than  to  December  ?  To  answer  this  we  must  make 
some  inquiries  respecting  the  climate  of  Judea.  Travellers  in 
Palestine  differ  widely  in  their  meteorological  accounts,  nor  is  this 
to  be  wondered  at,  as  the  seasons  vary  greatly  in  different  years, 
and  each  traveller  can  speak  only  of  what  falls  under  his  own  per- 
sonal observation.  Instead,  therefore,  of  trying  to  reach  some 
general  conclusions  from  such  isolated  accounts,  we  shall  take  the 
statements  of  those  who,  having  resided  some  time  in  Jerusalem, 
give  us  the  results  of  their  observations  for  several  successive 
years.    And  we  select  as  authorities  Schwartz1  and  Barclay.* 

The  year  is  divided  into  two  seasons,  summer  and  winter,  or 
the  dry  and  the  wet.  The  winter  rains  begin  to  fall  in  the  latter 
part  of  October  or  beginning  of  November.  The  most  rainy 
month  is  February.  During  the  months  of  December,  January, 
February,  and  March,  there  is  no  entire  cessation  of  rain  for  any 
long  interval ;  "  yet  an  interregnum  of  several  weeks'  dry  weather 
generally  occurs  between  the  middle  of  December  and  the  middle 
of  February,  somewhat  distinguishing  the  former  rains  of  the 
season  from  the  latter."*  "The  average  monthly  temperature 
during  four  years  from  1851  was,  for  November,  63°  8' ;  December, 
54°  5' ;  January,  49°  4' ;  February,  54°  4' ;  March,  55°  7'."  *  "  The 
temperature  of  Palestine  averages  during  the  winter  60°  to  53£°."  * 
Of  the  month  of  December,  the  following  account  is  given  :  "  The 
earth  fully  clothed  with  rich  verdure.  Wheat  and  barley  still 
sown,  also  various  kinds  of  pulse.  Sugar-cane  in  market.  Cauli- 
flowers, cabbages,  radishes,  lettuce,  lentiles,  &c.  Ploughing  still 
continues  at  intervals."  •  "  Temperature  same  as  preceding  month. 
The  sowing  of  grain  in  the  field  has  already  commenced.  Although 
the  oranges  and  kindred  fruit  have  been  long  since  ripe,  they 
continue  to  mature  on  the  trees  till  toward  April  and  May."7 

1  Descriptive  Geography  of  Palestine,  825-881. 

»  City  of  the  Great  King,  414-429. 

•  Barclay.        «  Barclay.        *  Schwartz.        •  Barclay.        7  Schwartz. 


DATE  OF  THE  LOBD'S  BIBTH.  17 

January  is  the  coldest  part  of  the  year,  and  fires  are  used 
by  the  Frank  population,  though  little  by  the  natives,  and  snow 
and  ice  are  occasionally  seen. 

These  statements  are  confirmed  in  general  by  the  highest  au- 
thorities.1 Although  they  may  have  in  part  more  special  reference 
to  Jerusalem,  they  apply  equally  well  to  Bethlehem,  the  climate 
of  which  is  not  unlike  that  of  Jerusalem,  though  milder."  There 
seems  then,  so  far  as  climate  is  concerned,  no  good  ground  to 
affirm,  that  shepherds  could  not  have  been  pasturing  their  flocks 
in  the  field  during  the  month  of  December.  As  we  have  seen, 
Barclay  states  that  in  this  month  the  earth  is  fully  clothed  with 
rich  verdure,  and  that  there  is  generally  an  interval  of  dry  weather 
between  the  middle  of  December  and  the  middle  of  February. 
Schubert  *  says  that  the  period  about  Christmas  is  often  one  of  the 
loveliest  periods  of  the  whole  year.  Tobler  says,  the  weather 
about  Christmas  is  favorable  to  the  feeding  of  flocks,  and  often 
most  beautiful.  "On  the  27th  December,  1846,  we  had  very 
agreeable  weather."  *  It  is  during  this  month  that  the  wind  be- 
gins to  blow  from  the  south  or  southwest,  which,  according  to 
Schwartz,  "brings  rain  and  betokens  warm  weather,"  and  thus 
hastens  forward  vegetation. 

Unless,  then,  the  climate  of  Judea  has  become  in  the  lapse  of 
years  much  warmer  than  of  old,  the  flocks  may  have  been  feeding 
in  the  fields  of  Bethlehem  in  the  month  of  December.  But  accord- 
ing to  Arago,*  there  has  been  no  important  change  for  the  last 
three  thousand  three  hundred  years.  Nor  do  the  incidental  notices 
of  Scripture  conflict  with  this.  The  Lord's  words,  "  Pray  that 
your  flight  be  not  in  the  winter,"  are  easily  understood  when  we 
remember  that  winter  is  the  rainy  season,  and  most  unfavorable 
for  journeying.  That  a  fire  was  made  at  a  much  later  period  of 
the  year,  (John  xviii.  18,)  is  plainly  an  exceptional  case,  and  for 
this  reason  mentioned.  "  Strong,  and  at  times  cold  winds  prevail 
in  April."  • 

There  remains  to  be  noticed  a  saying  of  the  Talmudists,  that 
the  flocks  were  taken  to  the  fields  in  March  and  brought  home  in 
November.    But  this  had  reference  to  those  pastures  that  were 

1  Winer,  2.  691 ;  Raumer,  77 ;  Robinson,  2. 428 ;  Tobler,  Denkblatter,  8,  Ac. 

*  Tobler,  Bethlehem.  >  Quoted  by  Wieselcr,  148. 

«  So  Bitter,  Theil  16.  480.       •  In  Winer,  2.  692.  •  Schwartz. 


18  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

found  in  the  wilderness  far  away  from  the  cities  or  villages,  and 
were  resorted  to  by  the  shepherds  during  the  summer  months. 
"  The  spring  coming  on,  they  drove  their  beasts  into  wildernesses, 
or  champaign  grounds,  where  they  fed  them  the  whole  summer. 
The  winter  coming  on,  they  betook  themselves  home  again  with 
the  flocks  and  herds."  ■  That  the  flock  was  near  Bethlehem 
would  therefore  show,  that  this  was  a  winter  rather  than  a  sum- 
mer month;  and  the  autumnal  rains  beginning  to  fall  in  No- 
vember, there  would  soon  be  abundance  of  grass.  The  inference 
drawn  by  many'  that,  the  flock  being  kept  through  the  night  in 
the  fields,  it  could  not  have  been  so  late  in  the  year  as  December, 
is  without  basis.  How  generally  during  the  winter  months  the 
cattle  were  stalled,  we  cannot  tell,  but  doubtless  in  this  the  shep- 
herds were  governed  by  the  peculiar  character  of  the  season. 

If,  then,  we  have  to  choose  between  the  months  of  December 
and  June,  the  balance  of  probabilities  is  in  favor  of  the  former. 
As  the  spring  rains  cease  in  April,  the  whole  country  soon  be- 
comes dry  and  barren.  Of  May,  Barclay  (423)  remarks :  "  Vege- 
tation having  attained  its  maximum,  now  begins  rapidly  to  de- 
cline for  want  of  rain ; "  and  of  June,  "  Herbage  becoming  parched, 
the  nomad  Arabs  begin  to  move  northward  with  their  flocks." 

As  the  early  tradition  of  the  Church  designated  this  month  as 
the  time  of  the  Lord's  birth,  it  has  been  generally  accepted,  but 
not  universally.  Lightfoot  makes  it  to  have  been  in  September, 
Newcome  in  October,  Paulus  in  March,  Wieseler  in  February, 
Lichtenstein  in  June,  Greswell  in  April,  Clinton  in  spring,  Lardner 
and  Robinson  in  autumn,  Strong  in  August. 

If  we  accept  the  month  of  December,  the  day  of  the  month 
still  remains  undetermined.  If  we  place  the  ministry  of  Zacharias 
in  Jerusalem  from  the  2d  to  9th  Oct.  748,  and  the  conception  of 
John  soon  after,  the  sixth  month  of  Elisabeth  (Luke  i.  86)  would 
extend  from  the  middle  of  March  to  the  middle  of  April  During 
this  period  was  the  annunciation  to  Mary,  and  the  Lord's  birth 
must  then  be  placed  between  the  middle  of  December,  749,  and 
the  middle  of  January,  750.  A  more  definite  result  we  cannot 
reach,  except  we  receive  the  traditional  date  of  the  25th  of  De- 
cember. The  origin  and  value  of  this  tradition  we  proceed  to 
consider. 

*  Lightfoot  on  Luke  ii.  8.  *  So  A.  Clarke,  Greswell. 


DATE   OP  THE  LORD'S   BIRTH.  19 

It  is  now  generally  granted  that  the  day  of  the  nativity  was 
not  observed  as  a  feast  in  any  part  of  the  Church,  east  or  west, 
till  some  time  in  the  fourth  century.1  If  any  day  had  been  earlier 
fixed  upon  as  the  Lord's  birthday,  it  was  not  commemorated  by 
any  religious  rites,  nor  is  it  mentioned  by  any  writers.  The  ob- 
servance of  the  25th  December  is  ascribed  to  Julius,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  ▲.  d.  337-352.  It  is  mentioned  as  observed  under  his  suc- 
cessor Liberius,  a.  d.  352-366.  In  the  Eastern  Church  till  this 
time,  the  6th  January  had  been  observed  as  the  day  of  the  Lord's 
baptism,  and  had  been  regarded  also  as  the  day  of  His  birth,  it 
being  inferred  from  Luke  iii.  23,  that  He  was  just  thirty  when  bap- 
tized. It  was  only  by  degrees  that  a  distinction  began  to  be  made 
between  the  date  of  His  birth  and  that  of  His  baptism,  and  that 
each  began  to  be  observed  upon  different  days.  Ohrysostom '  states 
that  it  was  only  within  ten  years  that  the  25th  December  had  been 
made  known  to  them  by  the  Western  Church  as  the  day  of  His 
nativity,  but  asserts  that  through  the  public  records  of  the  taxing 
(Luke  ii.  1-4)  preserved  at  Rome  it  had  long  been  known  to  the 
Christians  of  that  city.  From  this  time,  about  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century,  this  day  was  commemorated  as  the  birthday  both 
in  the  east  and  west 

Thus  we  have  in  favor  of  the  25th  December,  the  fact  that  the 
Eastern  Churches  were  induced  to  adopt  it,  and  to  transfer  to  it 
the  feast  which  they  had  before  observed  upon  the  6th  of  January. 
We  can  scarce  think  this  done  without  some  good  chronological 
grounds,  real  or  supposed.  But  we  do  not  know  what  these 
grounds  were.  Some"  ascribe  great  importance  to  the  state- 
ments of  Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  and  Chrysostom,  that  in  the 
public  arohives  at  Rome  a  registry  existed  of  the  census  under 
Augustus,  by  which  the  Lord's  birthday  was  conclusively  estab- 
lished. Jarvis  supposes  Tertullian  to  give  the  very  words  of  the 
enrolment  as  he  found  them  in  the  Roman  archives,  in  which 
Mary  is  mentioned  as  the  mother  of  Jesus — Maria  ex  qua  naa- 
citur  Chrittus.    Thus  the  day  being  proved  by  the  register  at 

1  So  Clinton.  "  Not  only  was  the  day  unknown,  but  for  800  years  after 
the  ascension  no  day  was  set  apart  for  the  commemoration  of  the  birth  of 
Christ." 

*  Antioch,  a.  d.  886.  *  So  Jarvis,  870  and  587. 


20  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

Kome,  the  knowledge  of  it  gradually  spread  to  the  Eastern  Churches. 
But  most  chronologists  have  regarded  these  statements  as  of  little 
value.1 

The  fact  that  the  tradition,  which  placed  the  Lord's  birth  on  the 
25th  December,  also  placed  the  birth  of  John  Baptist  on  the  24th 
June  preceding,  the  annunciation  to  the  virgin  on  the  25th  March, 
and  day  of  Elisabeth's  conception  on  the  24th  September,  or  on 
the  four  cardinal  points  of  the  year,  has  led  many  to  suppose  that 
these  periods  were  selected  with  reference  to  their  astronomical 
significance,  rather  than  as  the  real  dates  of  these  events.  It 
strengthens  this  supposition  that  so  many  of  the  Christian  festivals 
were  placed  upon  days  remarkable  in  the  Julian  calendar.  Noting 
these  facts,  Sir  Isaac  Newton*  inferred  that  "  these  days  were  fixed 
in  the  first  Christian  calendars  by  mathematicians  at  pleasure, 
without  regard  to  tradition,  and  that  the  Christians  afterward 
took  up  what  they  found  in  the  calendars."  More  probable  is  the 
supposition  that  these  dates  were  in  part  selected  as  the  times  of 
Christian  feasts,  in  order  to  serve  as  a  counterpoise  to  the  corre- 
sponding heathen  festivals,  and  in  part  because  of  their  typical 
meaning.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  feast  of  the  nativity  can  be 
directly  connected  with  any  heathen  festival,  for  the  connection 
between  this  day  and  the  dies  natalis  soils  invicti,  cannot  be 
proved ;  but  as  the  winter  solstice  its  bearings  are  often  typically 
interpreted  by  the  fathers.8  Thus  the  words  of  John  Baptist 
spoken  of  Christ,  (John  iii.  30)  "  He  must  increase  but  I  mast  de- 
crease," are  applied  to  the  fact  that,  at  John's  birth  in  June  24th, 
or  the  summer  solstice,  the  days  began  to  decrease  in  length,  but 
at  Christ's  birth,  December  25th,  the  days  began  to  increase. 
Thus  Augustine  * :  Hodie  natus  est  Johannes,  quo  ineipiunt  de- 
crescere  dies—eo  die  natus  Christus,  quo  crescere. 

Whilst  such  typical  applications  naturally  tend  to  beget  doubts 
whether  the  dates  so  connected  with  the  great  astronomical  epochs 
of  the  year  have  any  historic  foundation,  yet  on  the  other  hand  it 
should  be  borne  in  mind  that  if  the  25th  December  were  actually 

1  See  Kingsley  in  New  Englander,  April,  1847,  who  says  that  they  are  not 
referred  to  by  Baronius,  or  Pagi,  or  Causabon,  or  relied  on  by  Usher  or 
Newcome. 

a  Observations  upon  Daniel  and  Apoc. 

a  Sepp,  1.  200.  «  Homil.,  3. 


DATE  OP  THE  LORD'S   BIRTH.  21 

the  Lord's  birthday,  the  events  preceding  it,  the  conception  of 
John,  the  annunciation  to  Mary,  and  the  birth  of  John,  must  have 
taken  place  nearly  at  the  times  which  tradition  has  assigned.  And 
it  deserves  to  be  considered,  that  the  hour  of  His  birth,  who  is 
Lord  of  all,  was  not  matter  of  accident,  but  divinely  appointed. 
What  season  of  the  year,  might  be  most  fitting  to  so  great  an 
event,  or  whether,  astronomically  viewed,  the  winter  solstice  has 
any  such  fitness,  are  questions  not  necessary  to  be  answered  here. 
It  is  at  least  not  unreasonable  to  believe,  that  the  sun,  in  its  course, 
may  typify  Him  who  is  the  Sun  of  righteousness,  and  the  year  in 
its  seasons  foreshadow  the  epochs  of  His  life. 

The  strongest  argument  against  the  25th  December,  if  the  birth 
be  put  in  749,  is  that  it  leaves  too  little  space  for  the  events  that 
occurred  before  Herod's  death.  This  death  was  about  the  1st  of 
April,  760 ;  we  thus  have  a  little  more  than  three  months.  In 
this  period  were  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  the  presentation  at  the 
Temple,  the  flight  into  Egypt,  and  sojourn  there.  If,  according  to 
general  tradition,  the  Magi  came  on  the  6th  January  or  13th  day 
after  the  Lord's  birth,  and  the  presentation  was  on  the  40th,  or 
early  in  February,  He  went  down  into  Egypt  about  two  months 
before  Herod's  death.  Those  who  put  the  flight  into  Egypt  imme- 
diately after  the  coming  of  the  Magi,  on  the  6th  January,  and  the 
presentation  upon  the  return  after  Herod's  death,  gain  another 
month.  If,  however,  we  follow  the  order  of  most  modern  har- 
monists, and  put  the  visit  of  the  Magi  after  the  presentation  on  the 
40th  day,  the  time  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  up  to  Herod's  death  was 
a  little  less  than  two  months. 

Those  who  put  the  Lord's  birth  in  748  or  747,  make  the  period 
spent  in  Egypt  much  longer — some  three  years,  some  two,  some 
one,  some  six  months.  Those  who  put  the  birth  later  than  the 
25th  December,  749,  and  Herod's  death  in  April,  750,  make  the 
sojourn  but  three  to  four  weeks,  or  less ;  Wieseler  and  Ellicott 
only  about  a  fortnight.  There  is  nothing  in  Matthew's  narration, 
or  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  that  makes  it  probable  He  was 
there  more  than  a  few  weeks.  There  does  not,  therefore,  appear 
any  good  reason  why  all  the  events  he  narrates  may  not  have 
taken  place  between  the  25th  December  and  the  following  1st  of 
April. 

Our  inquiries  lead  us,  then,  to  these  general  results.    We  find  it 


22  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

most  probable  that  the  Lord  was  born  near  the  end  of  the  year 
749.  At  this  period  all  the  chronological  statements  of  the  Evan- 
gelists seem  most  readily  to  centre  and  harmonize.  In  favor  of 
December,  the  last  month  of  that  year,  as  much  may  be  said 
as  in  favor  of  any  other,  and  this  aside  from  the  testimony  of 
tradition.  As  to  the  day,  little  that  is  definite  can  be  said.  The 
25th  of  this  month  lies  open  to  the  suspicion  of  being  selected 
on  other  than  historic  grounds,  yet  it  is  not  inconsistent  with 
any  data  we  have,  and  has  the  voice  of  tradition  in  its  favor. 
Still,  in  regard  to  all  these  conclusions,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  many  elements  of  uncertainty  enter  into  the  computations,  and 
that  any  positive  statements  are  impossible.  It  is  well  said  by 
Spanheim :  Sed  cum  hoc  de  re  altum  apud  Ecangelistas  sit  silen- 
tium,  nee  Apostolicm  Bcclesia  vel  sanctionem,  vel  prcucin  legamus, 
causa  nihil  est%  cur  tetnere  definiamus  quod  solide  definiri  nan 
potest. 

DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  BAPTISM. 

If  we  assume,  upon  grounds  stated  in  the  essay  upon  the  date 
of  the  Lord's  birth,  that  the  Passover  following  His  baptism  was 
that  of  780,  we  have  to  determine  how  long  an  interval  elapsed 
between  them.  Our  only  data  to  decide  this  are  the  statements 
of  the  Synoptists  compared  with  those  of  John.  The  former  re- 
late how  Jesus  came  from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto  John,  and  was 
baptized,  and  how  He  was  immediately  led  up  of  the  Spirit  into 
the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  of  the  devil,  and  was  there  forty 
days.  Of  His  return  to  the  Baptist  at  the  Jordan,  they  say  noth- 
ing, but  John  supplies  the  omission,  (John  i.  29.)  Returning  after 
the  temptation  to  the  Jordan,  where  the  Baptist  bears  witness  to 
Him  as  the  Lamb  of  God,  He  begins  to  gather  disciples,  and  with 
Simon  and  Andrew  and  others  departs  to  Oana  of  Galilee.  All  this 
may  have  occupied  six  or  seven  days.  After  the  wedding  at  Cana 
He  went  down  to  Capernaum,  but  made  there  only  a  brief  sojourn, 
and  then  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  the  Passover,  which  fell  this 
year  upon  the  9th  April.  Supposing  that  he  reached  Jerusalem  a 
month  after  the  wedding  at  Oana,  we  find  that  the  whole  interval 
between  the  baptism  and  the  Passover  was  from  two  to  three 


DATE  OP  THE  LORD'S  BAPTISM.  23 

months.1  If  thi9  be  admitted,  the  Lord  was  baptized  some  time  in 
the  month  of  January,  780. 

Against  this  result,  a  very  strong  objection  is  brought,  derived 
from  the  relation  in  which  the  Lord's  baptism  stands  to  John's 
ministry.  From  Luke  (iii.  1-2)  we  learn  that  the  word  of  God 
came  to  John  in  the  wilderness  in  the  16th  year  of  the  reign  of 
Tiberius  Caesar.  If  this  year  corresponds,  as  is  said,  to  the  year 
782,  and  marks  the  beginning  of  his  work,  then  John  could  not 
have  baptized  Jesus  in  780.  Here  are  two  points  to  be  exam- 
ined :  first,  what  is  meant  by  the  word  of  God  coming  to  John ; 
second,  from  what  point  of  time  is  the  15th  of  Tiberius  to  be 
reckoned  f 

The  obvious  and  natural  interpretation  of  the  Evangelist's  lan- 
guage: "The  word  of  God  came  unto  John  in  the  wilderness, 
and  he  came  into  all  the  country  about  Jordan  preaching — as  it  is 
written ; "  is  that  it  refers  to  the  beginning  of  his  ministry.  But 
as  Christ's  work  in  Galilee,  which  only  is  mentioned  by  Luke,  be- 
gan after  John's  imprisonment,  it  is  said  that  this  imprisonment 
took  place  in  the  15th  year  of  Tiberius,  and  that  his  ministry  im- 
mediately preceding  it  is  that  referred  to.  That  it  was  early  so 
understood,  is  said  to  be  shown  by  Eusebiua,  (iii.  24,)  when  he  says 
that  the  Synoptists  "  only  wrote  the  deeds  of  our  Lord  for  one  year 
after  the  imprisonment  of  John  Baptist,  and  intimated  this  in  the 
very  beginning  of  their  history."  In  recent  times,  the  denial  that 
Luke's  words  refer  to  the  beginning  of  the  Baptist's  ministry,  has 
been  defended  by  several  eminent  chronologists.*  Sanclemente' 
attempts  to  show  that  the  15th  year  of  Tiberius  "  nen  ad  initium 
minitterii  Joannis,  rum  ad  baptismum  a  Chruto  in  Jordane  *u*cep- 
fWR,  ted  ad  ijmuB  pastionit  et  cruc\fixumi»  tempus  ipso  evangelista 
duce  atque  interprets  esse  referendum."  Brown  (92)  adopted  this 
explanation  in  a  modified  form.  "  The  heading  of  St.  Luke's  third 
chapter  contains  the  date,  not  of  the  mission  of  St.  John  the 

1  Some  chronologists  would  much  enlarge  this  period.  Hales  puts  the 
baptism  six  months  before  the  Passover ;  Usher,  says  two  years  and  a  half  be- 
fore. See  Clinton,  2.  234,  note.  But  most  agree  that  it  was  from  two  to  four 
months. 

*  So  Sanclemente,  Browne,  Wieseler ;  and  following  the  latter,  Tischen- 
dorf  and  Ellicott. 

•  As  cited  by  Wieseler,  196,  note. 


24  CHBONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

Baptist,  bnt  of  the  year  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  especially  in  refer- 
ence to  the  great  events  with  which  it  closed."  Wieseler,  (194,) 
referring  the  Evangelist's  words  to  the  imprisonment  of  John, 
has  defended  this  view  most  ingeniously  and  elaborately.  It  is  ob- 
vious, that  in  this  way  we  avoid  a  great  chronological  difficulty, 
but  we  meet  others  as  great.  The  16th  year  of  Tiberius,  counting 
from  the  death  of  Augustus,  on  the  19th  August,  767,  was  the  year 
from  August  781  to  August  782.  Wieseler  puts  the  imprisonment 
of  the  Baptist  about  the  middle  of  March,  782,  and  his  death  in 
April  following.  Thus  the  period  of  his  imprisonment  is  limited 
to  three  weeks,  which  is  manifestly  too  brief.  Again,  if  the  state- 
ments of  Luke  (iii.  3-18)  have  reference  to  a  work  of  John  im- 
mediately preceding  his  captivity,  he  must  have  returned  from 
JEnon  (John  iii.  23)  to  the  Jordan,  and  thus  have  begun  anew 
his  labors.  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  fact,  that  his  work 
had  reached  its  culminating  point  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  From 
that  time  he  began  to  decrease.  It  could  not  be  said  of  him 
in  the  last  stage  of  his  ministry,  as  Luke  relates,  (iii.  15,)  that 
"  all  men  mused  in  their  hearts  of  John,  whether  he  were  the 
Christ  or  not." 

We  therefore  conclude,  in  common  with  the  great  body  of 
chronologists  and  commentators,  that  Luke  designs  to  refer  the 
15th  year  of  Tiberius  to  the  beginning  of  the  Baptist's  ministry.1 
We  must  now  turn  to  the  second  point,  from  what  period  is  the 
15th  year  of  Tiberius  to  be  reckoned  ?  Tiberius  was  the  step-son 
of  the  emperor  Augustus,  and  was  formally  adopted  by  him  in  757. 
After  filling  several  high  stations  in  the  civil  and  military  service, 
he  was  associated  with  him  in  the  general  administration  of  the 
empire  in  764  or  765."  Upon  the  death  of  Augustus,  on  the  19th 
of  August,  767,  he  became  sole  ruler.  Thus  there  are  two  periods 
from  which  his  rule  or  administration  may  be  reckoned :  that  when 
he  was  associated  with  Augustus,  and  that  when  he  began  to  rule 
alone.  To  which  of  these  periods  does  Luke  refer  ?  If  to  the  for- 
mer, the  15th  year  of  his  government  was  that  of  779-780 ;  if  the 
latter,  from  19th  August,  781-782.  If  we  accept  the  latter  date,  and 
John  began  his  ministry  in  August,  the  baptism  of  Jesus  must  be 

1  So  Meyer,  Lichtenstein,  Ebrard,  Winer,  Krafft. 

9  According  to  Greswell,  1.  344,  and  most,  in  beginning  or  middle  of  765. 
According  to  Sepp,  1.  231,  in  year  from  Aug.  768-764. 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S   BAPTISM.  25 

placed  in  782.  If  He  was  born  in  749  or  beginning  of  750,  He 
must  have  been  thirty-two  or  thirty-three  years  of  age  at  this  time, 
which  it  is  difficult  to  reconcile  with  Luke  (iii.  23)  that  He  was 
44  about  thirty  years  of  age."  If  born  in  748  or  747,  He  was  now 
thirty-four  or  thirty-five,  which  presents  a  still  greater  difficulty. 
Hence  many  have  inferred  that  Luke,  who  could  not  well  have  over- 
looked the  apparent  discrepancy,  must  have  reckoned  the  15th  year 
of  Tiberius,  from  the  time  when  he  became  colleague  with  Augustus. 
The  importance  of  this  date,  and  the  many  difficulties  connected 
with  it,  demand  that  we  give  to  it  a  more  particular  examination. 
Three  points  claim  our  attention.  1st.  The  fact  of  Tiberius'  asso- 
ciation with  Augustus  in  the  government  of  the  empire.  This  fact 
is  beyond  all  doubt  The  direct  evidence  is  found  in  Tacitus,  Sue- 
tonius, and  Paterculus,  and  there  are  incidental  allusions  to  it  in 
several  other  writers.1  Tacitus  says " 44  that  on  him  every  honor 
was  accumulated ;  he  was  adopted  by  Augustus  for  his  son,  as- 
sumed colleague  in  the  empire,  and  presented  to  the  several 
armies."  He  relates  also  that  Tiberius,  in  reply  to  the  request  of 
the  Senate  to  take  the  government,  said  that  "  Augustus  only  was 
capable  of  so  mighty  a  charge,  that  for  himself,  having  been  called 
by  him  to  a  participation  of  his  cares,  he  had  learned  by  experience 
how  difficult  to  bear,  and  how  subject  to  fortune  was  the  burden  of 
the  general  administration  " — regendicuncta.  In  like  manner,  Sue- 
tonius •  says  that  "  Augustus  ordered  that  Tiberius  should  be  named 
as  his  colleague  " — collegam  iuum  Tiberium  nuncupare  jussit.  He 
mentions  also  a  law  promulgated  by  the  consuls,  that  "  Tiberius, 
jointly  with  Augustus,  should  rule  in  the  provinces  and  also  take 
the  census  " — ut  provincial  cum  Augusto  communiter  administraret, 
simulque  centum aqertt.  Merivale  (4.  367)  observes :  "This  commu- 
nication of  proconsular  power  abroad  could  hardly  admit  of  any  other 
interpretation  than  that  the  son  was  thereby  formally  associated  in 
the  empire  with  his  father."  Paterculus,  (103,)  alluding  to  his  adop- 
tion by  Augustus,  represents  himself  as  unable  to  describe  the  joy  of 
that  day ;  the  great  concourse  of  all  ranks  of  the  people,  and  their 
hopes  and  prayers.  He  mentions  also  the  triumph  due  him  be- 
cause of  his  victories  in  Pannonia  and  Dalmatia,  and  which  was 
celebrated  with  great  magnificence,  after  the  Senate  and  people 
of  Rome,  on  a  request  being  made  by  his  father  that  he  might  be 

•  See  Lardner,  1.  865.  »  Ann.,  1.  8.  »  August.,  97. 

2 


26  CHBONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

invested  with  authority  equal  to  his  own — ut  csquum  ei  jtts  in 
omnibus  provinciia  exercitibusque  esset,  quam  erat  ip&i,  had  passed 
a  decree  to  that  effect.  Pater  cuius  adds,  as  his  own  comment,  that 
it  would  have  been  unreasonable  if  he  could  not  have  ruled  what 
he  had  secured. 

Thus  the  fact  is  abundantly  established,  that  Augustus  did  for- 
mally associate  Tiberius  with  him  in  the  rule  of  the  empire.  At 
his  request,  a  decree  to  this  effect  was  passed  by  the  Senate  and 
people.  Nor  was  Tiberius  a  colleague  in  name  merely.  Augustus, 
very  aged,  and  now  sinking  under  bodily  infirmities,  was  almost 
wholly  under  the  control  of  his  wife,  the  mother  of  Tiberius,  whilst 
the  latter  was  in  the  prime  of  life,  active  and  energetic.  In  the 
very  nature  of  the  case,  Tiberius,  from  the  time  of  his  colleague- 
ship  the  recognized  successor  to  the  imperial  throne,  must  have 
been  a  most  conspicuous  and  influential  person,  and,  we  may  per- 
haps say,  the  emperor  de  facto,  although  the  name  and  prestige  re- 
mained with  Augustus  till  his  death.  That  upon  this  event  he  did 
not  openly  and  immediately  act  as  emperor,  but  paid  court  to  the 
Senate,  as  if  the  Republic  still  existed,  and  as  if  he  were  irresolute 
about  assuming  the  sovereign  rule,1  is  attributable  to  the  peculiar 
political  circumstances  of  the  times ;  and  also  to  his  haughty  tem- 
per, that  chose  rather  to  ascribe  his  elevation  to  the  voice  of  the 
people,  than  to  the  intrigues  of  his  mother,  and  to  the  favor  of  a 
weak,  superannuated  old  man. 

2d.  When  was  Tiberius  thus  made  colleague  with  Augustus  ? 
Most  chronologists  agree  in  placing  the  decree  of  the  Senate  already 
alluded  to,  near  the  end  of  764  or  beginning  of  765."  We  may 
accept  this  as  the  true  date.  Taking  then  the  year  765,  from  Jan- 
uary to  January,  as  the  1st  of  Tiberius,  the  15th  is  the  year  779. 
Some  time,  then,  in  779,  is  the  beginning  of  John's  ministry  to  be 
placed. 

3d.  Is  it  probable,  that  Luke  would  compute  the  reign  of 
Tiberius  from  his  colleagueship  ?  It  is  said  that  there  is  no  proof 
that  this  mode  of  computation  was  known  to  any  of  the  fathers, 
or  that  it  was  ever  used  by  any  historians.'  Clemens  of  Alexandria 
does,  however,  mention  that,  according  to  one  mode  of  computing, 

1  Tacit™,  Ann.,  1.  7. 

*  So  Greswell,  Wieseler,  Lichten stein,  Robinson. 

3  See  Browne,  67,  note ;  Ammer,  75. 


DATE   OF  THE   LORD'S   BAPTISM.  27 

Tiberius  feigned  twenty -two  years,  according  to  another  twenty- 
six  years,  which,  if  it  be  not  a  numerical  error,  indicates  a  twofold 
beginning  of  his  reign.  Hofmann1  supposes  that  in  Josephus*  there 
is  a  reference  to  the  colleagueship,  where  he  states  that  "  Tiberius 
died  after  he  himself  had  held  the  government  twenty-two  years  " 
— (tx*»v  avros  rr)»  apxrjv-  The  most  obvious  construction  of  this 
phrase,  is  that  which  refers  it  to  his  sole  administration,  in  contra- 
distinction to  his  colleagueship.  That  such  a  twofold  computation 
took  place  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  later  emperors,  is  unques- 
tioned. A  coin  exists  bearing  the  inscription :  u  In  the  11th  holy 
year  of  the  government  of  the  emperor  Titus."  •  As  he  himself 
lived  only  two  years  after  his  father's  death,  the  other  nine  years 
must  refer  to  his  joint  rule  with  his  father  as  a  colleague.  And 
whether  the  fathers  were  ignorant  that  the  reign  of  Tiberius. might 
be  reckoned  from  two  epochs,  is  doubtful.  Lardner  reasons  that 
they  must  have  known  it,  because  as  they  almost  universally  placed 
the  crucifixion  in  the  15th  year,  they  must  have  seen  how  incon- 
sistent it  was  with  Luke,  who  placed  the  beginning  of  John's  min- 
istry in  that  year. 

We  cannot,  without  doing  St.  Luke  great  injustice  as  a  his- 
torian, suppose  him  to  have  been  ignorant  of  a  fact  so  public  and 
notorious  as  that  of  the  association  of  Tiberius  with  Augustus  in 
the  empire ;  and  there  is  no  good  reason  why,  if  knowing  it,  he 
should  not  have  taken  it  as  an  epoch  from  which  to  reckon.  If 
the  Italians  dated  his  reign  from  the  emperor's  death,  that  natu- 
rally follows  from  the  fact  that  the  imperial  authority  of  Tiberius, 
during  his  colleagueship,  was  little  felt  in  Italy ;  his  administration 
being  especially  confined  to  the  provinces.  But  it  gives  a  good 
reason  why  those  in  the  provinces,  especially  of  Asia  Minor  and 
Syria,  should  reckon  from  the  time  when  he  became  in  regard  to 
them  the  acting  emperor.  Whether  by  the  choice  of  the  word 
"  reign,"  rfytnovta,  rather  than  Ba<rtX«ta  or  povapxia,  he  designed  to 
indicate  this,4  is  uncertain,  but  the  word  is  certainly  applicable  to  a 
government  administered  by  more  than  one  person.  The  cases  in 
all  eastern  countries  where  the  sons  of  kings  were  associated 
with  their  fathers  in  the  kingdom  were  so  common,  that  the 
double  reckoning  of  their  reigns  could  not  have  been  any  thing 

»  Cited  by  Lichtenstein,  129.  »  Antiq.,  18.  6.  10. 

>  Sepp,  1.  280.  *  So  Sepp. 


28  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

unusual.  Indeed,  the  epoch  from  which  to  date  a  reign  is  often 
perplexing,  and  brings  no  little  confusion  into  chronology.  Gres- 
well  (1. 336)  ascribes  the  Evangelist's  statement  to  "  that  scrupulous 
regard  to  truth,  which  we  should  have  a  right  to  expect  from  an 
inspired  historian.  He  could  not  deliberately  call  that  year  the 
13th  of  Tiberius  which  he  knew  to  be  really  his  15th." 

These  considerations  will,  we  trust,  exculpate  the  Evangelist 
from  all  charges  of  historical  inaccuracy.  It  is  plain  that  he  might 
reckon  the  years  of  Tiberius'  reign  from  that  time,  when,  by  his 
father's  desire  and  the  solemnly  expressed  will  of  the  Senate  and 
people,  he  entered  upon  the  exercise  of  imperial  power.  But 
whether,  in  point  of  fact,  Luke  thus  computes,  continues  to  be 
matter  of  dispute.1 

To  sum  up  our  investigations  upon  this  point,  we  find  three 
solutions  of  the  chronological  difficulties  which  the  statements  of 
Luke  present.  1st.  That  the  15th  year  of  Tiberius  is  to  be  reck- 
oned from  the  death  of  Augustus,  and  extends  from  August  781  to 
August  782.  In  this  year,  the  Baptist,  whose  labors  began  some 
time  previous,  was  imprisoned,  but  the  Lord's  ministry  began  in 
780,  before  this  imprisonment,  and  when  He  was  about  thirty  years 
of  age.  2d.  That  the  15th  year  is  to  be  reckoned  from  the  death 
of  Augustus,  but  that  the  statement  the  Lord  was  about  thirty 
years  of  age  is  to  be  taken  in  a  large  sense,  and  that  He  may  have 
been  of  any  age  from  thirty  to  thirty-five,  when  He  began  His 
labors.  8d.  That  the  15th  year  is  to  be  reckoned  from  the  year 
when  Tiberius  was  associated  with  Augustus  in  the  empire,  and 
is  therefore  the  year  779.  In  this  case,  the  language  "  He  was 
about  thirty"  may  be  strictly  taken,  and  the  statement,  "the 
word  of  God  came  unto  John,"  may  be  referred  to  the  beginning 
of  his  ministry. 

Of  these  solutions,  the  last  seems  to  have  most  in  its  favor ;  and 
we  shall  assume  that  during  the  year  779,  or  the  15th  year  of 

1  In  favor  of  the  computation  from  the  colleagueship,  Usher,  Bengel,  Lard- 
ner,  Jarvis,  Greswell,  Liechtenstein,  Sepp,  Friedlieb,  Bucher,  Patritius ;  of 
the  sole  reign  of  Tiberius,  Light  foot,  Wieseler,  Meyer,  Ebrard,  Teschendorf, 
Ewald,  Browne,  Ellicott,  Ammer.  Clinton  says,  "  We  are  compelled  to  con- 
clude that  St.  Luke  computed  the  years  of  Tiberius  in  a  peculiar  manner," 
but  denies  that  there  is  any  ground  for  selecting  the  year  765  as  the  year 
of  the  colleagueship. 


DATS  OF  THE  LORD'S  BAPTISM.  29 

Tiberius,  reckoned  from  his  colleagueship  with  Augustus,  John 
began  to  preach  and  baptize.  We  have  next  to  inquire  in  what 
period  of  the  year  his  labors  began. 

From  the  fact  that  the  Levites  were  not  allowed  to  enter  upon 
their  full  service  till  the  age  of  thirty,  (Numb.  iv.  3,)  it  has  been 
generally  supposed,  although  there  is  no  express  law  to  that  effect, 
that  the  priests  began  their  labors  at  the  same  age.  At  this  period 
the  body  and  mind  were  deemed  to  have  reached  their  full  vigor.1 
Hence  it  has  been  inferred  that  John  must  have  reached  the  age 
of  thirty  ere  he  began  his  ministry.  If  this  inference  be  correct, 
he  began  to  preach  during  the  summer  of  779,  his  birth  having  taken 
place,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  summer  of  749.  We  may  then  con- 
clude that  he  entered  upon  his  work  near  the  middle  of  779,  when 
he  was  about  thirty.  If  so,  he  began  to  preach  and  baptize  about 
July  or  a  little  later.  How  long  his  labors  had  continued  before 
Jesus  came  to  him  to  be  baptized,  we  can  but  conjecture.  That, 
however,  he  had  been  active  for  a  considerable  period,  is  apparent 
from  the  statements  by  the  Synoptists  respecting  "  the  multitudes 
that  came  out  to  him  from  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the 
region  round  about  Jordan,"  (Matt.  iii.  6 ;  Mark  i.  5 ;  Luke  iii.  7.) 
Some  months  at  least  must  have  elapsed  ere  his  fame  could  have 
spread  so  widely,  and  so  many  have  been  drawn  to  him.  And  if 
we  suppose  that  the  larger  part  of  these  crowds  received  the  rite 
of  baptism  at  his  hands,  a  still  longer  period  is  required.  A  body 
of  disciples,  as  distinguished  from  the  multitudes,  had  already 
gathered  around  him.  If  we  add  to  this,  that  at  Christ's  baptism, 
his  work  seems  to  have  reached  its  highest  point,  and  thencefor- 
ward began  to  decline,  we  cannot  well  estimate  this  period  as  less 
than  six  months  in  duration. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  some  considerations  that  prevent 
us  from  much  enlarging  this  period.  The  general  belief  of  the 
Jews  that  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  was  near,  and  their  earnest 
desire  for  it,  would  naturally  turn  their  attention  to  John  as  soon 
as  he  appeared  in  public.  His  ascetic  life,  his  energetic  speech, 
his  boldness  of  reproof,  and  the  whole  character  of  his  teachings, 
were  adapted  to  produce  an  immediate  and  powerful  impression 
upon  the  people  at  large.  And  the  frequent  gathering  of  the  in- 
habitants from  all  parts  of  the  land  at  the  feasts,  would  serve 

»  Greswell,  1.  877. 


30  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAYS. 

rapidly  to  diffuse  the  tidings,  that  a  new  prophet  had  arisen.  But 
as  such  a  phenomenon  as  this  preacher  in  the  wilderness  could  not 
long  escape  the  notice  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  ecclesiastical  rulers 
at  Jerusalem,  so  it  could  not  long  remain  unquestioned.  So  soon 
as  his  popularity  became  wide-spread,  and  multitudes  began  to  re- 
ceive baptism  at  his  hands,  they  would  seek  to  know  who  he  was, 
and  by  what  authority  he  instituted  this  new  rite.  But,  as  appears 
from  John,  (i.  19-28,)  no  such  formal  inquiry  was  made  by  the 
Pharisees  of  the  Baptist  till  after  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  Hence 
we  may  infer  that  his  ministry  had  not  yet  continued  any  very 
long  period. 

We  may  also  add  that  John's  message,  M  Repent  ye,  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,"  was  plain  and  easily  understood. 
He  was  no  teacher  of  abstract  doctrines,  but  a  herald  of  the  Mes- 
siah, and  his  words  took  immediate  hold  of  men's  hearts.  Thus 
his  mission  could  be  speedily  fulfilled. 

In  view  of  the  above  considerations,  we  conclude  that  John's 
ministry  may  have  continued  about  six  months,  when  the  Lord 
came  to  be  baptized.1  If  he  was  already  thirty  when  he  began 
his  work,  and  his  birth  be  placed  in  June,  749,  six  months  before 
that  of  the  Lord,  he  began  in  July,  779,  to  preach  and  baptize. 
If  about  six  months  elapsed  ere  the  Lord  came  to  him  at  the  Jor- 
dan, His  baptism  was  near  the  beginning  of  780.  It  confirms  us 
in  this  result,  that  two  or  three  months  must  have  elapsed  from  the 
baptism  of  Jesus  to  the  first  Passover,  (John  ii.  13.)  We  rest, 
then,  in  the  conclusion,  that  Jesus  was  baptized  December,  779,  or 
January,  780. 

In  the  absence  of  all  other  data,  we  must  here  consider  the 
tradition  that  puts  His  baptism  on  the  6th  of  January.  It  has 
already  appeared  in  our  inquiries  into  the  date  of  our  Lord's 
nativity,  that  both  His  birth  and  baptism,  and  also  the  adoration 
of  the  Magi,  were  originally  commemorated  on  the  same  day,  and 
that  this  day  was  the  6th  of  January.  This  feast  was  called  the 
feast  of  the  Epiphany,  tm(f)avfia  (Titus  ii.  13),  and  commemorated 
His  manifestation  to  the  world.  After  the  Roman  Church  had 
established  the  feast  of  the  nativity  upon  the  25th  Deoember,  it 
still  continued  to  observe  the  6th  January  in  commemoration  of  the 
adoration  of  the  Magi  and  of  the  baptism,  giving,  however,  more 
1  So  Lightfoot,  Newcomc,  and  many. 


DATE  OP  THE  LORD'S  BAPTISM.  31 

prominence  to  the  former  than  to  the  latter.1  The  Greek  Church, 
on  the  contrary,  after  it  began  to  observe  the  25th  December  as 
the  day  of  the  nativity,  transferred  to  it  also  the  adoration  of  the 
Magi,  and  commemorated  only  the  baptism  on  the  6th  January. 
Thus  both  the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches  now  agree  in  the  ob- 
servance of  this  day  as  that  of  the  Lord's  baptism. 

If  we  now  proceed  to  ask,  on  what  grounds  this  day  was  se- 
lected as  that  of  the  baptism,  we  obtain  no  very  satisfactory  an- 
swer. The  feast  of  the  Epiphany  seems  to  have  been  originally 
commemorative  of  the  baptism  as  the  time  when  the  Lord  was  first 
manifested  openly  as  the  Son  of  God,  (Matt.  ill.  16-17;)  and  as  He 
was  supposed,  through  a  too  literal  interpretation  of  Luke,  (iii.  28,) 
to  have  been  just  thirty  years  of  age,  the  day  of  the  baptism  was 
also  that  of  the  birth.  The  same  feast,  therefore,  might  well  em- 
brace both  events.  Afterward,  other  events,  coming  under  the 
same  general  idea  of  manifestation,  were  included  in  the  commem- 
oration ;  the  adoration  of  the  Magi,  the  first  miracle  at  Cana  of 
Galilee,  where  44  He  manifested  forth  His  glory,"  and,  later  still, 
the  miraculous  feeding  of  the  five  thousand.'  As  all  these  events 
could  not  have  taken  place  on  the  same  day  of  the  year,  it  be- 
comes doubtful  whether  any  of  them  can  be  referred  to  the  6th  of 
January.  The  observance  of  this  day  as  that  of  the  baptism,  is 
first  mentioned  by  Clemens,  of  Alexandria,  as  existing  amongst  the 
Gnostio  Basilidians  of  that  city.*  Some  have  thought  that,  as  the 
Egyptians  celebrated  at  this  time  the  feast  Inventio  Osiridis,  the 
Basilidians  adopted  both  the  feast  and  date  from  them.  But,  aside 
from  other  objections  to  this  Egyptian  origin,4  it  is  most  improb- 
able that  the  church  at  large  would  have  borrowed  any  feast  from 
the  Gnostics.  We  may  rather,  with  Neander,6  suppose  it  to  have 
originated  with  the  churches  in  Palestine  or  Syria.  If  so,  the  se- 
lection of  the  6th  January  may  rest  upon  some  good  basis.  There 
can  be  no  question  that  the  baptism,  the  secunda  nativitas,  was 
commemorated  before  the  nativity  itself.  Beyond  the  simple  fact 
that  the  Epiphany  was  put  on  this  day,  we  have  no  knowledge. 
Sepp,  (1.  243,)  though  in  general  a  defender  of  tradition,  here  re- 
jects it,  and  Jarvis,  (467,)  at  the  close  of  his  investigations  into  the 

1  See  Missal e  Romanum.    In  Epiphania  Domini. 

*  See  Dorner,  Christologie,  1.  284  •  Guericke,  Arch&ologie,  20L 

•  See  Wieseler,  136.  •  Ch.  Hist,  1.  802. 


32  CHBGNOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

matter,  simply  says  that,  as  there  is  no  testimony  against  it,  there 
is  no  impropriety  in  considering  the  6th  January  as  the  true  date.1 

But  there  is  an  objection  to  the  month  of  January  drawn  from 
the  climate  of  Palestine  that  deserves  to  be  considered.  It  is  said 
that  such  multitudes  could  not  have  gathered  to  John  in  the  mid- 
winter, nor  could  the  rite  of  baptism  then  have  been  performed  in 
the  cold  and  swollen  Jordan."  We  must  then  examine  more  closely 
the  climatic  peculiarities  of  Judea. 

In  the  inquiry  into  the  date  of  the  Lord's  birth,  we  have  al- 
ready had  occasion  to  speak  of  the  general  character  of  the  sea- 
sons. That  during  the  winter,  or  rainy  season,  after  heavy  rains 
the  travelling  is  difficult  and  fatiguing,  all  travellers  testify."  But 
the  rains  are  not  constant.  Beginning  in  October  or  November 
they  fall  gradually  and  at  intervals,  but  become  more  copious  and 
frequent  in  December,  January,  and  February,  and  continue  into 
March  and  April.  It  is  stated  by  Barclay,  that  nine-tenths  of  all 
the  rain  falls  in  December,  January,  February,  and  March.  In 
January,  there  are  gushes  of  rain  and  sometimes  snow,  but  in  the 
southern  parts  of  the  land  the  sky  clears  up  and  there  are  often  fine 
days.4  The  rain  comes  mostly  out  of  the  west,  or  west-north- 
west, and  continues  from  two  to  six  days  in  succession,  but  falls 
chiefly  at  night.  Then  the  wind  turns  to  the  east,  and  several  days 
of  fine  weather  follow.  The  whole  period  from  October  to  March 
is  one  continuous  rainy  season,  during  whioh  the  roads  become 
muddy,  slippery,  and  full  of  holes ;  but  when  the  rain  ceases,  the 
mud  quickly  dries  up,  and  the  roads  become  hard,6  though  never 
smooth. 

If,  as  we  have  supposed,  John  began  to  preach  in  the  summer, 
perhaps  in  July,  there  is  nothing  in  these  statements  to  lead  us  to 
suppose  that  he  suspended  his  labors  when  the  rainy  season  be- 
gan. During  the  intervals  of  clear  weather,  at  least,  the  people 
continued  to  gather  to  him.  Besides,  we  cannot  tell  what  was  the 
character  of  this  particular  season.   According  to  Thomson,  (1. 129,) 

*  So  Bucher,  Friedlieb,  Browne.  "  About  the  last  half  of  January,"  Gres- 
well.  In  December  or  January,  Lichtenstein.  "  In  Tisri,  about  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,"  Lightfoot.  In  November,  Usher.  In  Spring,  Clinton.  The 
7th  of  October,  Sepp.    Beginning  of  December,  Patritius. 

>  So  Rcbinson,  Sepp.  »  Thomson,  1.  829. 

«  Winer,  2.  692.  •  Herzog's  Encyc,  11.  23. 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  BAPTISM.  33 

the  climate  is  "  extremely  variable  and  uncertain.  I  have  seen  the 
rains  begin  early  in  November  and  end  in  February,  but  they  are 
sometimes  delayed  until  January  and  prolonged  into  May,"  We 
cannot,  in  a  climate  so  changeable,  undertake  to  say  that  John 
might  not  without  any  serious  obstruction  continue  to  preach  and 
baptize  throughout  the  whole  rainy  season.  Greswell  (1.  372)  finds 
it  specially  fitting  that  he  should  commence  his  ministry  at  a  time 
when  water  was  so  abundant,  and  affirms  that  "  in  Judea  the  win- 
ter season  would  be  no  impediment  to  the  reception  of  baptism." 
So  far  as  regards  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  he  is  in  this  justified  by 
the  statements  of  travellers.  This  valley  lies  so  low  that  the  cold 
of  winter  can  scarce  be  said  to  be  felt  there  at  all.  Especially  is 
this  true  of  the  lower  part  of  it,  where  John  baptized.  Lying 
twelve  or  thirteen  hundred  feet  below  the  level  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea,  it  has  a  tropical  climate.  Josephus,1  speaking  of  the 
plain  of  Jericho,  says :  "  So  mild  is  the  climate,  that  the  inhabi- 
tants are  dressed  in  linen  when  the  other  parts  of  Judea  are  cov- 
ered with  snow."  Robinson  also,  (1. 588,)  writing  in  May,  speaks 
in  like  terms:  "The  climate  of  Jericho  is  excessively  hot.  In 
traversing  the  short  distance  of  five  or  six  hours  between  Jerusa- 
lem and  Jericho,  the  traveller  passes  from  a  pure  and  temperate 
atmosphere  into  the  sultry  heat  of  an  Egyptian  climate."  Porter 
describes  the  air  as  being  "  like  the  blast  of  a  furnace." 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  mere  chilliness  of  the  water  of  the 
Jordan  running  through  this  deep  hot  valley,  where  snow  or  ice 
is  never  found,  cannot  be  so  great  as  to  prevent  baptism  even  in 
midwinter,  except  perhaps  in  some  very  rare  instances.  Nor  is 
this  river  usually  at  its  highest  stage  till  April  or  May.  As  it  was 
in  Joshua's  time  so  is  it  now.  "  Jordan  overfloweth  all  his  banks 
all  the  time  of  harvest,"  (Josh.  iii.  15,)  or,  as  explained  by  Robin- 
son, was  full  up  to  all  its  banks,  "  ran  with  full  banks,  or  brim- 
full."  "  Then,  as  now,  the  harvest  occurred  during  April  and  early 
in  May,  the  barley  preceding  the  wheat  harvest  by  two  or  three 
weeks.  Then,  as  now,  there  was  a  slight  annual  rise  of  the  river, 
which  caused  it  to  flow  at  this  season  with  full  banks,  and  some- 
times to  spread  its  waters  even  over  the  immediate  banks  of  its 
channel  where  they  are  lowest,  so  as  in  some  places  to  fill  the 
low  tract  covered  with  trees  and  vegetation  along  its  sides."  * 
>  War,  4.  8.  8.  *  Robinson,  1.  540. 

2* 


34  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAYS. 

Thomson  (2.  453)  speaks  to  the  same  effect,  and  explains  why  the 
overflow  of  this  river  .should  be  so  late  in  the  season  as  March  or 
April  after  the  rains  are  all  over.  This  explanation  he  finds  in  the 
fact  that  its  waters  come  from  great  permanent  springs  lying  on  the 
southern  declivities  of  Hermon,  and  which  are  not  at  all  affected 
by  the  early  winter  rains.  "  It  requires  the  heavy  and  long-con- 
tinued storms  of  midwinter  before  they  are  moved  in  the  least ; 
and  it  is  not  till  toward  the  close  of  winter  that  the  melting  snows 
of  Hermon  and  Lebanon,  with  the  heavy  rains  of  the  season,  have 
penetrated  through  the  mighty  masses  of  these  mountains,  and 
filled  to  overflowing  their  hidden  chambers  and  vast  reservoirs, 
that  the  streams  gush  forth  in  their  full  volume.  The  Huleh, 
marsh  and  lake,  is  filled,  and  then  Gennesaret  rises  and  pours  its 
accumulated  waters  into  the  swelling  Jordan  about  the  first  of 
March." 

That  there  should  be  occasional  floods  in  this  river  after  long- 
continued  rains,  before  the  time  of  harvest,  and  during  the  rainy 
season,  is  to  be  expected,  and  will  serve  to  explain  the  statements 
of  those  travellers  who  found  it  swollen  during  the  autumn  and 
early  winter.  Thus  Seetzen  ■  states,  that  in  consequence  of  a  storm 
accompanied  with  high  cold  winds,  he  was  compelled  to  remain 
from  the  8th  to  the  14th  January  on  the  bank  before  he  was  able  to 
cross.  Sepp,  (1 .  240,)  who  bathed  in  it  on  the  6th  January,  1846,  found 
the  current  swift  and  the  water  cold.  But  such  occasional  floods 
do  not  affect  the  general  rule,  that  during  the  winter  the  water  re- 
mains at  its  ordinary  level,  and  begins  to  rise  toward  March,  and 
is  highest  at  the  time  of  harvest.  "  All  rivers  that  are  fed  by 
melting  snows  are  fuller  between  March  and  September,  than  be- 
tween September  and  March,  but  the  exact  time  of  their  increase 
varies  with  the  time  when  the  snows  melt."  * 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  follows  that  so  far  as  the  climate 
is  concerned,  and  the  overflowing  of  the  Jordan,  no  reason  exists 
why  John  may  not  have  been  baptizing  in  midwinter.  That  bap- 
tisms at  this  season  of  the  year  actually  took  place  in  later  times, 
we  learn  from  the  testimony  of  Felix  Fabri.'  He  says  that  the 
cloisters  of  St.  John  on  the  banks  of  the  river  at  the  time  of  the 
Abbot  Zozima  were  inhabited  by  many  monks,  who  about  the 

»  Cited  in  Ritter,  Theil,  15.  517.  ■  Smith's  Bib.  Diet,  1. 1128. 

»  Cited  in  Ritter,  Theil,  15.  539. 


DATE  OF  tin:  lord's  DEATH.  35 

time  of  Epiphany — the  6th  January — kept  high  festival  there. 
The  Abbot  of  Bethlehem,  the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  with  many 
monks  and  clergy,  walked  down  to  the  river  in  solemn  procession, 
and  after  a  cross  had  been  dipped  in  the  waters,  all  the  sick 
through  their  baptism  were  healed,  and  many  miracles  wrought 
in  behalf  of  the  pious.  So  in  the  time  of  Antoninus  Martyr  and 
Willibaldus,  "  the  annual  throng  of  pilgrims  to  bathe  in  the  Jordan 
took  place  at  the  Epiphany."  *  It  is  therefore  perfectly  credible 
that  John  may  have  baptized  many,  and  with  others  the  Lord,  in 
the  month  of  January. 

We  may  now  sum  up  the  results  of  our  inquiry.  The  first 
Passover  after  the  Lord's  baptism  was  that  of  780,  and  fell  upon 
the  9th  April.  The  baptism  preceded  this  Passover  some  two  or 
three  months,  and  so  probably  fell  in  the  month  of  January  of  that 
year.  John's  ministry  began  soon  after  he  was  thirty  years  of 
age,  or  about  July,  779.  Allowing  that  his  labors  had  continued 
six  months  before  the  Lord  was  baptized,  we  reach  in  this  way 
also  the  month  of  January,  780.  Tradition  has  selected  the  6th 
of  this  month  as  the  day  of  the  baptism,  but  we  have  no  positive 
proof  that  the  tradition  is  well,  or  ill-founded.  The  climatic  pe- 
culiarities of  the  country  offer  no  valid  objections  to  this  date. 
Although  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  in  December  or  Jan* 
uary  Jesus  was  baptized,  yet  the  day  of  the  month  is  very  un- 
certain. 

DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  DEATH. 

This  point  is  so  closely  connected  with  the  length  of  His  min- 
istry, that  we  shall  consider  the  two  together.  And  we  first  in- 
quire what  data  do  the  Evangelists  give  to  determine  how  long 
the  interval  from  His  baptism  to  His  death  ?  It  has  already  been 
shown  that  about  three  months  intervened  between  His  baptism 
and  the  Passover  following.  This  was  probably  the  Passover  of 
780,  and  the  first  during  His  ministry,  (John  ii.  18.)  Another 
Passover  is  mentioned,  (John  vi.  4,)  and  still  another,  (xi.  55.)  It 
is  universally  admitted  that  the  latter  was  the  last  Passover.  If 
there  be  none  other  than  these  named  by  John,  His  ministry  was 

>  Robinson,  1.  646.    Early  Travels,  17. 


36  CHEONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

of  two  years'  and  two  or  three  months'  duration.  But  John  speaks 
of  a  feast  (v.  1)  which  he  does  not  name,  and  which  many  regard 
as  a  Passover.  If  so,  there  would  he  four  Passovers,  and  conse- 
quently His  ministry  embrace  a  little  more  than  three  years. 
We  have  then  to  determine  what  feast  is  meant  by  John  (v.  1.) 
This  will  hereafter  be  fully  discussed.  We  shall  here  assume  that 
it  is  a  Passover.  We  thus  reach  the  result  that  the  Lord's  min- 
istry, computing  from  His  baptism,  embraced  three  years  and 
about  three  months,  and  that  the  Passover  on  which  he  died  was 
that  of  783. 

The  day  on  which  the  Lord  died  was  Friday,  as  plainly  appears 
from  the  Evangelists.  Joseph  went  to  Pilate  to  obtain  the  body 
of  Jesus  "  when  the  even  was  come,  because  it  was  the  Prepara- 
tion, that  is,  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,"  (Mark  xv.  42.)  "  And 
that  day  was  the  Preparation,  and  the  Sabbath  drew  on,"  (Luke 
xxiii.  54.)  "  The  Jews,  therefore,  because  it  was  the  Preparation, 
that  the  bodies  should  not  remain  upon  the  cross  on  the  Sabbath 
day,"  (John  xix.  31,)  &c.  That  this  Sabbath  was  the  regular 
weekly  Sabbath,  appears  from  Matt,  xxviii.  1 ;  Mark  xvi.  1 ;  Luke 
xxiii.  56.  Jesus  was  crucified  on  Friday,  and  buried  the  same  day ; 
was  in  the  grave  over  the  Sabbath,  and  rose  on  the  morning  of  the 
first  day  of  the  week. 

If  thus  the  Lord  died  on  Friday,  as  is  almost  universally  ad- 
mitted, what  day  of  the  month  was  this  ?  Here  we  meet  the  much 
disputed  point  whether  He  was  crucified  on  the  14th  or  15th  Nisan. 
This  will  be  fully  considered  in  its  place,  and  we  assume  here  that 
it  was  the  15th.  We  have  then  to  determine  upon  what  year  fol- 
lowing 780,  the  15th  Nisan  fell  on  a  Friday.  According  to  Wieseler 
(389)  this  was  the  case  only  once  from  782-786.  In  783  the  15th 
was  upon  Friday.  To  those  who  make  the  crucifixion  to  have  been 
on  the  15th  Nisan,  the  year  783  is  therefore  the  year  of  His  death. 
Others,  who  place  the  crucifixion  on  the  14th  Nisan,  find  that  in 
786  this  day  was  a  Friday,1  others  still  in  782.*  It  is  admitted 
that  too  many  doubtful  elements  enter  these  calculations  to  make 
them  perfectly  trustworthy." 

Some  have  thought  to  find  a  chronological  datum  in  the  fact 
of  the  darkening  of  the  sun  at  the  time  of  the  Lord's  crucifixion. 

»  So  Ewald,  5.  136.  ■  So  Browne,  54.  "  Winer,  1.  562. 


37 

As  this  was  npon  the  14th  or  15th  of  Nisan,  and  so  at  the  time  of 
a  full  moon,  it  conld  not  have  been  an  eclipse.  But  as  mention  is 
made  of  an  eclipse  which  occurred  near  this  time,  some  of  the 
fathers,  and  some  moderns  have  sought  to  establish  a  connection 
between  the  two  events.  Phlegon,  of  Tralles,  who  died  about  155 
a.  d.,  and  who  wrote  some  historical  works,  of  which  only  a  few 
fragments  remain,  relates  that,  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  202 
Olympiad,  or  from  July  785  to  786,  a  great  eclipse  of  the  sun  took 
place,  greater  than  any  that  had  ever  been  known,  so  that  at  the 
sixth  hour  it  was  very  dark  and  the  stars  Appeared.  There  was 
also  a  great  earthquake  in  Bithynia,  and  a  great  part  of  Nice  was 
destroyed.1  This  statement  presents  several  apparent  points  of 
resemblance  to  those  of  the  Evangelists,  but  a  brief  examination 
shows  that  it  cannot  refer  to  the  darkness  at  the  crucifixion. 
Phlegon  speaks  of  an  eclipse ;  had  he  meant  an  extraordinary  or 
supernatural  darkness,  he  could  scarcely  have  failed  distinctly  to 
mention  it.  The  time  also  of  this  eclipse  is  uncertain,  for  some  of 
those  who  have  reported  his  statement  refer  it  to  the  fourth,  and 
some  to  the  second  year  of  the  202  Olympiad,  or  to  the  fourth 
year  of  the  201.*  But  the  astronomer  "Wurin  has  computed  that 
only  one  eclipse  took  place  in  this  Olympiad,  and  that  in  Novem- 
ber 24,  782.'  It  seems,  therefore,  that  Phlegon  has  himself  erred 
in  the  date,  or  that  he  wrote  the  first  year  of  this  Olympiad,  which 
has  been  changed  into  the  fourth.  As  it  is  not  mentioned  at  all 
by  most  of  the  early  fathers,  it  seems  that  they  must  have  regarded 
it  as  an  ordinary  eclipse,  and  therefore  without  any  special  rela- 
tion to  the  crucifixion.4  Most  moderns  agree  that  it  is  of  no 
chronological  value.* 

Some  have  found  ground  for  a  chronological  inference  as  to 
the  time  of  the  Lord's  death,  in  the  assertion  of  the  Pharisees  be- 
fore Pilate,  (John  xviii.  81,)  "  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man 
to  death."  Lightfoot  (on  Matt.  xxvi.  8)  gives,  as  a  correct  tradi- 
tion of  the  Talmud  ista,  "  Forty  years  before  the  Temple  was  de- 


1  For  some  little  differences  in  the  versions,  see  Jarvis,  420. 
»  See  Ammer,  41 ;  Wieseler,  887. 

»  Winer,  2.  482.  «  See  Jarvis,  427. 

•  Winer,  Lichtenstein,  Meyer,  Jarvis,  Greswell.    Sepp  would  prove  from 
it  thai  the  crucifixion  was  in  782 ;  Ammer,  that  it  was  in  786. 


38  CHBONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

stroyed,  judgment,  in  capital  causes,  was  taken  away  from  Israel." ■ 
It  is  generally  agreed  that  the  Temple  was  destroyed  in  August, 
823.  Computing  backward  forty  years,  we  reach  783,  as  the  year 
when  the  Jews  lost  the  power  of  inflicting  capital  punishments. 
Hence  it  follows,  that  if  Christ  had  been  tried  by  them  before  the 
year  783,  they  would  have  had  the  power  of  punishing  Him  with 
death,  according  to  their  own  laws.  His  crucifixion,  therefore, 
could  not  have  been  earlier  than  this  year. 

As  we  have  no  knowledge  how  this  judgment  in  capital  cases 
was  lost  to  the  Jews,  whether  by  the  act  of  the  Romans,  or,  as 
Lightfoot  supposes,  by  their  own  remissness,  we  cannot  tell  how 
strictly  the  "  forty  years  "  is  to  be  taken.  They  may  be  used  in- 
definitely, forty  being  here,  as  often,  a  round  number.  Little  stress 
in  this  uncertainty  can  be  laid  upon  this  result. 

Some  find  in  the  parable  of  the  barren  fig-tree,  (Luke  xiii.  6-9,) 
an  allusion  to  the  length  of  the  Lord's  ministry — **  Behold,  these 
three  years  I  come  seeking  fruit  on  this  fig-tree,  and  find  none."  * 
It  certainly  cannot  be  without  meaning  that  three  years  are  men- 
tioned. This  is  ascribed  by  some  to  the  fact  that  so  many  years 
must  pass  after  planting  before  the  tree  can  bear  fruit.*  But  the 
language  shows  that  fruit  is  sought,  not  after,  but  during  the  three 
years.  Some  refer  it  to  the  whole  period  of  grace  before  Christ.* 
But  why  designate  it  as  three  years  ?  Perhaps  some  three  epochs 
in  Jewish  history  may  be  meant,  although  it  is  not  clear  what  they 
are.  It  is  not,  however,  improbable  that  Christ's  ministry  is  re- 
ferred to.  If  we  suppose  it  to  have  been  spoken  late  in  782,  His 
ministry  beginning  in  780,  this  was  the  third  year,  and  He  was  not 
crucified  till  783.  But  it  cannot;  be  said  that  the  tree  was  actu- 
ally cut  down  after  the  expiration  of  the  one  year  of  grace.  As  a 
chronological  datum,  the  mention  of  the  three  years  has  little  value.* 

From  early  times,  many  have  found  a  prophetic  announcement 
of  the  length  of  the  Lord's  ministry  in  the  words  of  Daniel  ix.  27, 
— "  And  He  shall  confirm  the  covenant  with  many  for  one  week,  and 
in  the  midst  of  the  week  He  shall  cause  the  sacrifice  and  the  obla- 
tion to  cease."  Of  the  fathers,  Browne  says,  (77,)  "  Others,  com- 
paratively late  writers,  were  led  by  their  interpretation  of  Daniel's 

1  See  also  Friedlieb,  Archaologie,  22. 

2  So  Bengel,  Hengstenberg,  Wieseler,  Alford.         *  So  BloomOeld. 

4  So  Grotius,  McKuight.  6  So  Meyer,  Trench. 


DATE  OP  THE  LOED'S  DEATH.  39 

prophecy  to  assign  a  term  of  three  and  a  half  years."  This  inter- 
pretation has  all  along  to  the  present  day  had  advocates.  Thns 
Lightfoot,  (3.  89,)  u  He  had  now  three  years  and  a  half  to  live,  and 
to  be  a  public  minister  of  the  Gospel,  as  the  Angel  Gabriel  had  told 
that  in  half  of  the  last  seven  of  the  years  then  named  He  should 
confirm  the  covenant."  Barnes  (in  loco)  says  :  "  The  meaning  of 
the  passage  is  fully  met  by  the  supposition  that  it  refers  to  the 
Lord  Jesus  and  His  work,  and  that  the  exact  thing  that  was  in- 
tended by  the  prophecy  was  His  death.  Whatever  difficulties 
there  may  be  about  the  precise  time  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  it  is 
agreed  on  all  hands  that  it  lasted  about  three  years  and  a  half, 
the  time  referred  to  here."  It  seems  also  to  have  been  commonly 
believed  by  the  ancients  that  the  last  week  of  the  seventy  includes 
the  pradkatio  Domini  to  the  Jews  for  three  and  a  half  years 
before,  and  the  same  length  of  time  after  the  Passion."  ■  (i res- 
well  (4.  406)  maintains  the  same  interpretation.  Vitringa,  with 
whom  Hengstenberg  agrees,4  says :  u  His  death  was  undoubtedly 
to  happen  in  the  middle  of  the  last  hebdomad,  after  the  seven  and 
sixty-two  years  had  already  come  to  an  end."  • 

Without  denying  that  the  prophecy  has  reference  to  the  Mes- 
siah, it  is  questionable  whether  it  is  to  be  so  pressed  as  to  furnish 
a  proof  that  the  Lord's  publio  work  continued  just  three  and  a 
half  years.  The  number  of  interpretations  that  have  be,en  pro- 
posed is  very  great,  and  there  is  far  from  being  even  now  unanim- 
ity of  opinion.  Thus  Lightfoot  makes  the  Lord's  own  ministry 
to  have  been  three  and  a  half  years.  Greswell  adds  to  three  years 
of  the  Lord's  ministry  half  a  year  of  the  Baptist ;  Browne  to  one 
year  of  the  Lord's  ministry  two  and  a  half  years  of  the  Baptist.* 
We  cannot,  under  these  circumstances,  attach  much  chronological 
importance  to  it. — Obscurum  non  probatur  per  obscurius. 

Computations  as  to  the  year  when  the  seventy  weeks  ended,  as 
bearing  on  the  time  of  the  Lord's  death,  can  be  but  little  relied  on, 
and  need  not  be  considered  here. 

Into  the  mazes  of  patristic  chronology  we  are  not  called  to 
enter,  nor  could  we  thus  attain  any  important  results.*  Still  a 
brief  survey  of  early  opinions  will  not  be  without  its  value.    We 

•  Browne,  885.  *  Chriatology,  8. 168. 

•  See  Sepp,  1.  284.  '  See  Ammer,  116. 

•  See  the  very  fall  investigations  of  Patritius,  Hi,  Diss.  xix. 


40  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAYS. 

find  three  distinct  views  prevalent.  First.  That  which  makes  the 
Lord's  ministry  to  have  continued  but  one  year,  and  #tbe  whole 
length  of  His  life  to  have  been  about  thirty  years.  This  view  first 
comes  to  our  notice  among  the  Valentinians,  a  heretical  sect,  who 
said  that  there  were  thirty  ^Eons  corrresponding  to  the  thirty 
years  of  His  life  before  His  ministry,  and  that  He  died  the  twelfth 
month  after  His  baptism.  Among  the  orthodox,  Clemens,  of  Alex- 
andria, (t  220,)  is  the  earliest  defender  of  this  view,  and  gave  it 
wide  currency.  Among  those  who  adopted  it  in  substance  were 
Tertullian,  Origen,  Lactantius,  and  perhaps  Augustine,  although 
the  former  is  by  no  means  consistent  in  his  statements,  Origen  is 
confused,  and  Augustine  doubtful.  It  is  placed  mainly  upon  Scrip- 
tural grounds,  much  stress  being  laid  upon  Isaiah  lxi.  2,  quoted  by 
the  Lord,  (Luke  iv.  19,)  and  by  some  upon  Ex.  xii.  5. 

Second.  That  which  makes  His  age  at  His  death  to  have  been 
between  forty  and  fifty.  Of  this,  Irenrous  (t  202)  appears  as  the 
first  defender,  although  it  appears  from  Augustine  that  there  were 
others  later  that  held  it.  In  proof,  two  passages  in  John's  Gospel 
were  cited,  (viii.  57  and  ii.  20.)  From  the  former  it  was  inferred 
that  He  was  more  than  forty,  and  from  the  latter  that  He  was  just 
forty-six,  as  the  temple  of  His  body  had  been  so  long  in  building. 
Irenaeus,  arguing  against  the  Valentinians,  shows  from  the  men- 
tion of  three  Passovers  by  this  Evangelist,  that  the  Lord's  ministry 
was  more  than  a  year,  but  how  long  he  does  not  determine. 

Third.  That  which  makes  His  ministry  to  have  continued  from 
two  to  four  years,  and  His  whole  life  from  thirty-two  to  thirty- 
four  years.  Of  this  view  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  and  Jerome  were 
the  earliest  representatives. 

If  we  now  ask  after  the  data  upon  which  the  early  fathers 
based  their  opinions,  we  find  the  following  the  most  important. 
Till  the  time  of  Tertullian  (t  243)  there  is  mentioned  no  datum  for 
determining  the  length  of  His  ministry  other  than  is  given  by  the 
Evangelists.  If,  as  is  affirmed  by  some,  the  church  at  Jerusalem 
had  preserved  the  knowledge  of  the  year  by  tradition,  there  is  no 
proof  of  the  fact.  Tertullian  is  the  first,  so  far  as  we  know,  who 
connects  the  crucifixion  with  the  consulship  of  the  two  Gemini. 
"He  suffered  under  Tiberius  Cresar,  R.  Geminus,  and  P.  Ge- 
minus,  being  consuls,  on  the  eighth  day  before  the  calends  of 
April,"  (25th  March.)    In  this  statement  Tertullian  was  followed 


DATE  OF  THE  LORD'S  DEATH.  41 

by  Lactantius,  Augustine,  and  others,  especially  of  the  Latin  fa- 
thers.' Whence  had  Tertullian  this  information  ?  This  is  not  ap- 
parent. Some  suppose  that  Pilate  having  sent  to  Rome  an  account 
of  the  Lord's  crucifixion,  which  was  placed  in  the  archives,  Ter- 
tullian thus  learned  its  date.  But  on  whatsoever  basis  it  rested, 
this  statement  soon  obtained  general  currency,  and  was  almost 
universally  received.  If  we  assume  its  truth  we  must  consider  to 
what  results  it  leads  us. 

The  Gemini  were  consuls  during  the  year  beginning  January, 
782.  Thus  this  consular  year  was  contemporaneous  with  about 
eight  months  of  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius,  and  four  months  of 
the  sixteenth  year.  The  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius,  if  reckoned, 
as  it  seems  to  have  been,  from  the  death  of  Augustus,  extended 
from  August  19,  781,  to  August  19,  782,  and  the  sixteenth  to 
August  19,  783.  But  the  crucifixion  was,  according  to  Tertul- 
lian, in  March,  783,  and  was  not,  therefore,  during  their  consular 
year,  which  ended  with  December,  782.  Still,  as  only  about 
three  months  elapsed  from  the  end  of  their  consulship,  it  might 
readily  be  connected  with  their  names.  It  is  also  to  be  remem- 
bered that  there  was  a  threefold  mode  of  reckoning  the  Roman 
year— the  political,  the  civil,  the  historical.*  The  first  was  accord- 
ing to  consulships,  and  from  January  to  January ;  the  second,  from 
March  t#  March ;  the  third,  dating  from  the  time  of  founding  the 
city,  and  from  21st  April  to  21st  April.  It  is,  therefore,  possible 
that  we  may  explain  the  discrepancies  respecting  the  time  of  the 
crucifixion  in  the  following  manner :  The  year  of  the  consulship 
of  the  Gemini,  782,  reckoned  from  January  to  January,  is  not 
wholly  identical  with  782  of  Rome,  which  was  reckoned  from 
April  21  to  April  21,  but  has  about  eight  months  in  common 
with  it.  We  have  thus  three  years,  all  bearing  on  the  same  event, 
the  crucifixion,  yet  differently  computed;  first,  the  fifteenth  of 
Tiberius  from  August,  781,  to  August,  782;  second,  the  consular 
year  of  the  Gemini  from  January,  782,  to  January,  783  ;  third,  the 
year  782  of  Rome  from  21st  April,  782,  to  21st  April,  788.  It  is 
apparent  how  confusion  may  have  arisen  from  neglect  to  mark 
accurately  the  dates  as  connected  with  these  several  modes  of 
computation.' 

»  8ee  full  citations  in  Greswell,  1.  451 ;  Jarvis,  876. 
*  Ideler,  2.  150.  »  See  Greswell,  1.  456. 


42  CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 

That  the  Lord  did  not  suffer  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius, 
is  plain  from  St.  Luke  himself  as  in  this  case  John's  ministry  and 
that  of  the  Lord  must  both  have  been  embraced  in  the  brief  period 
of  twelve  months.  If,  however,  His  death  be  placed  in  the  six- 
teenth year  of  Tiberius,  the  Baptist  may  have  begun  his  labors  in 
August,  781,  the  Lord  have  been  baptized  in  January,  782,  and 
suffered  in  April,  783,  thus  making  His  ministry  to  have  continued 
one  year  and  some  months,  but  in  this  case  He  did  not  suffer  in 
the  consulate  of  the  two  Gemini.  Greswell  remarks,  (1.  439,)  "  I 
am  persuaded,  that  during  the  first  two  centuries,  no  Christian 
doubted  of  the  fact  that  our  Lord  suffered  in  the  fifteenth  or  six- 
teenth year  of  Tiberius." 

That  no  value  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  tradition  of  the  Lord's 
death  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius,  is  apparent  from  the  fact, 
that  it  plainly  contradicts  the  statements  of  John,  who  mentions 
three  Passovers ;  and  it  limits  His  ministry  to  a  year  and  some 
months.  Nor  is  it  possible  that  He  died  during  the  consular  year 
of  the  Gemini,  for  then  His  crucifixion  was  in  the  early  part  of 
that  year  or  the  spring  of  782,  which  presents  the  same  difficulty. 
Nor  can  this  have  taken  place  on  the  25th  March  of  that  year.  He 
was  crucified  on  the  14th  or  15th  Nisan,  but  these  days  in  782  fell 
on  the  16th  and  17th  of  April.1  The  designation  of  the  day  and 
month  is  necessarily  wrong,  and  this  invalidates  the  accuracy  of 
the  whole  tradition.  Besides,  this  tradition  was  by  no  means  uni- 
versal or  unquestioned.  The  early  fathers  were  not  wholly  un- 
aware of  these  difficulties,  and  several  of  them  state  that  they  had 
not  the  data  for  a  conclusive  judgment.  Irenceus  says:  "We 
cannot  be  ignorant  how  greatly  all  the  fathers  differ  among  them- 
selves, as  well  concerning  the  year  of  the  Passion  as  the  day." 
Again :  "  Concerning  the  time  of  the  Passion,  the  diversities  of 
opinion  are  infinite."  Augustine  says,  that  except  the  fact  that 
He  was  about  thirty  at  His  baptism,  all  else  was  obscure  and  un- 
certain. Tertullian  is  inconsistent  with  himself,  and  now  makes 
His  ministry  to  have  continued  one  year,  and  now  three ;  now 
puts  His  baptism  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius,  and  now  in  the 
twelfth.  In  regard  to  Tertullian,  the  bishop  of  Lincoln,  in  his 
account  of  his  writings,"  observes  :  "  The  correct  inference  appears 

»  Ideler,  2.  422.  •  London,  1845,  p.  147. 


DATE  OP  THE  LORD'S  DEATH.  43 

to  be  that  Tertullian  believed  that  our  Saviour's  ministry  continued 
for  three  years,  but  mistook  the  year  in  which  He  was  revealed  for 
the  year  in  which  He  suffered."  Some  began  early  to  put  His  death 
in  the  sixteenth,  others  in  the  seventeenth  or  eighteenth,  and  finally 
in  the  nineteenth  of  Tiberius.  This  tradition,  so  indefinite,  and  nev- 
er finding  general  reception,  has  now  no  claim  upon  our  attention. 

From  this  survey  of  the  several  data  respecting  the  time  of  the 
Lord's  death,  we  conclude  that  none  lead  us  to  positive  results. 
If  it  were  certain  that  the  Friday  on  which  He  was  crucified,  was 
the  15th  Nisan,  there  would  be  strong  probability,  if  not  absolute 
certainty,  that  the  year  was  that  of  788.  If,  however,  it  was  the 
14th  Nisan,  as  many  affirm,  this  datum  fails  us,  and  we  have  to 
choose  between  the  years  782  and  786.  The  computation  of  the 
length  of  His  ministry,  from  the  number  of  Passovers,  has  an  ele- 
ment of  uncertainty  which  forbids  a  definite  judgment ;  and  the 
computations  based  upon  the  darkening  of  the  sun  at  His  crucifix- 
ion, upon  the  loss  of  power  to  inflict  capital  punishments  by  the 
Jews,  upon  the  parable  of  the  barren  fig-tree,  upon  the  prophetic 
half- week  of  Daniel,  and  upon  tradition,  are  all  inconclusive. 

We  add  a  brief  survey  of  opinions  respecting  the  duration  of 
the  Lord's  publio  life.  The  first  is  that  which  limits  His  ministry 
to  a  single  year,  or  a  year  and  some  months.  As  has  been  said, 
this  was  a  very  early  opinion  in  the  church,  many  of  the  fathers 
finding  in  it  a  fulfilment  of  Isaiah  lxi.  2,  where  mention  is  made 
of  "  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord."  *  This  early  opinion  has 
been  recently  defended  by  Browne  in  his  Ordo  Sceculorum  (p.  92.) 
He  thus  meets  the  difficulties  arising  from  the  mention  of  three 
Passovers  by  St.  John.  That  mentioned  in  John  vi.  4,  is  not  rightly 
found  there,  since  it  is  not  mentioned  by  some  of  the  early  fathers, 
who,  in  their  notices  of  this  subject,  must  have  alluded  to  it,  had 
it  been  in  the  text  of  the  first  two  centuries.  The  feast  (John  vi.  1) 
was  not  Passover  but  Pentecost.  Thus  but  two  Passovers  remain, 
and  the  following  order  is  obtained:  1.  Passover,  John  ii.  13; 
2.  Pentecost,  v.  1 ;  3.  Tabernacles,  vi.  4  and  vii.  2  ;  4.  Dedication, 
x.  22 ;  5.  Passover  of  the  crucifixion.  Thus  the  whole  ministry 
extends  from  one  Passover  to  another. 

How  insufficient  are  the  grounds  upon  which  the  rejection  of 

1  Others,  however,  applied  this  passage  not  to  His  whole  miuiatry,  but  to 
the  first  year  of  it. 


44  CHRONOLOGICAL   ESSAYS. 

the  Passover  (John  vi.  4)  rests  is  apparent.  Nor  is  it  possible 
npon  any  grounds,  external  or  internal,  to  defend  this  order,  which 
thus  crowds  all  the  events  of  the  Lord's  public  life  into  a  single 
year. 

If  some  find  but  two  Passovers  in  the  sacred  history,  others 
find  five,  or  even  six.  McKnight  supposes  that  the  Lord's  public 
work  may  have  been  prolonged  more  than  five  years  complete.1 
"  Nay,  it  may  have  been  several  years  longer,  on  the  supposition 
that  there  were  Passovers  in  His  ministry,  of  which  there  is 
neither  direct  mention  made,  nor  any  trace  to  be  found  in  the  his- 
tory."  This  opinion  has  now  no  advocates,  and  needs  no  discussion. 

Rejecting  the  extremes  on  either  side,  our  choice  must  lie  be- 
tween a  ministry  embracing  three,  and  one  embracing  four  Pass- 
overs. The  former  has  many  advocates,  but  labors  under  many 
difficulties,  which  will  be  pointed  out  as  we  proceed.  On  both 
internal  and  external  grounds  we  are  led  to  choose  the  latter, 
and  to  give  to  Bis  ministry  a  duration  of  a  little  more  than  three 
years.  Placing  Ilis  death  in  April,  783,  His  public  life,  if  it  be 
dated  from  the  purgation  of  the  Temple,  continued  just  three  years, 
if  from  His  baptism,  three  years  and  about  three  months,  or  from 
January,  780,  to  April,  783. 

We  accept,  then,  as  probable  conclusions,  that  the  Lord  was 
born  December,  749 ;  baptized  January,  780 ;  crucified  April,  7, 
783 ;  length  of  ministry,  three  years  and  three  months.  That 
the  25th  December  and  6th  January  were  the  days  of  the  nativity 
and  baptism  rests  wholly  upon  tradition. 

For  comparison,  we  add  the  various  dates  of  the  Lord's  death, 
which  have  found  recent  advocates :  781,  Jarvis ;  782,  Browne, 
Sepp,  Clinton,  Patritius ;  783,  Wieseler,  Friedlieb,  Greswell,  Tisch- 
endorf,  Bucher,  Ellicott,  Thomson,Riggenbach ;  784,  Hales,  Paulus; 
786,  Ebrard,  Ammer,  Ewald. 

»  Har.,  Preliminary  Obs. 


THE  LIFE  OF  OUR   LORD. 


PART  I 


FROM  THE  ANNUNCIATION  TO  ZACHARIAS  TO  THE  BAPTISM 
OF  JESUS;  OR,  FROM  OCT.,  748,  TO  JANUARY,  780.  6 
B.C.— 27  A.D. 


3-9  Oct.,  748.    6  b.c. 

Near  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Herod  the  Great,  King  of   Luke  i.  6-22. 
Judea,  an  angel  was  sent  by  God  to  Zacharias,  an  aged 
priest  of  the  course  of  Abia,  whilst  ministering  in  the  Holy 
Place,  to  announce  to  him  the  birth  of  a  son,  who  should  be 
the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah. 

The  chronological  value  of  this  statement  has  been  al- 
ready considered  in  the  essay  on  the  date  of  the  Lord's 
birth. 

Some  of  the  fathers  supposed  that  Zacharias  was  the 
high  priest,  and  that  the  services  in  which  he  was  engaged 
were  those  of  the  great  day  of  atonement,  upon  the  10th  of 
Tisri.1  But  there  is  no  ground  for  this.  Zacharias  is  called 
only  a  priest,  not  high-priest,  and  was  a  member  of  one  of 
the  twenty-four  courses,  which  the  high-priest  was  not.  He 
was  also  chosen  by  lot  to  burn  incense  upon  the  golden 
altar  in  the  Holy  Place ;  but  the  high-priest's  duties  upon 
this  day,  as  at  other  times,  were  all  prescribed  by  law,  and 
could  not  be  given  him  by  lot.     Besides,  the  latter  must 

1  So  Chrysostom,  Ambrose;  see  Williams'  Nativ.,  28. 


46  THE  LIFE   OP   OUE  LORD. 

reside  at  Jerusalem,  but  the  residence  of  Zacharias  was  in 
some  neighboring  city.1 


Oct.,  748— March,  749.    6-5  b.  c. 

Returning  after  his  course  had  completed  its  ministry,  to  Luke  i.  23-26. 
his  own  house  in  the  hill-country  of  Judah,  his  wife  Elisa- 
beth conceived  a  son,  and  spent  the  five  months  following 
in  retirement. 

The  home  of  Zacharias  was  in  "  the  hill-country,"  or 
mountainous  region  of  Judah,  (Luke  i.  39  and  65.)  But  as 
the  name  of  the  city  is  not  mentioned,  several  cities  have 
contended  for  the  honor  of  John's  birthplace.  Many  have 
supposed  Hebron  to  be  meant,  a  city  very  ancient,  and  very 
conspicuous  in  early  Jewish  history."  A  Jewish  tradition 
also  gives  this  as  John's  birthplace.'  Aside  from  this,  its 
claims  rest  chiefly  upon  the  fact  that  it  was  a  priestly  city ; 
and  upon  the  form  of  expression  in  Joshua,  (xx.  7,  xxi. 
11,)  where  it  is  described  as  being  "  in  the  mountain,"  and 
"in  the  hill-country  of  Judah." 

Some  have  contended  for  Jutta,  the  Juttah  of  Joshua, 
(xv.  55,)  regarding  Juda  (v.  39)  IouSo,  as  an  erroneous 
writing  of  Jutta,  Iou^a,  or  Ioura.  This  view,  first  suggested 
by  Reland,  (870,)  although  wholly  unsupported  by  any  man- 
uscript authority,  has  found  many  advocates.*  The  modern 
Jutta  is  described  by  Robinson,  (ii.  206,)  who  saw  it  from 
a  distance,  as  "  having  the  appearance  of  a  large  Moham- 
medan town  on  a  low  eminence,  with  trees  around."  It 
is  about  five  miles  south  of  Hebron,  and  was  one  of  the 
priestly  cities.  (Josh.  xxi.  16.)  But  granting  the  identity 
of  the  Juttah  of  Joshua  with  the  modern  city,  this  adds 
nothing  to  the  proof  that  it  was  John's  birthplace  ;  and  the 

1  Greswell,  i.  382 ;  Patritius,  iii.  8. 

*  So  Barouius,  Lightfoot,  Ewald,  Sepp,  Townsend. 

»  Winer,  i.  586.  Bitter,  Baumer,  Bobinson,  Patritius. 


ZACHARIAS   AND   ELISABETH.  47 

fact  that  there  is  no  tradition  of  that  kind  amongst  the  in- 
habitants, nor  any  local  memorials,  seems  to  make  strongly 
against  it . 

Those  who  made  Zacharias  to  be  high-priest,  and  so 
necessarily  resident  near  the  Temple,  supposed  Jerusalem 
to  be  the  city  meant,  but  this  has  now  no  advocates. 

An  ancient  tradition  designates  a  small  village  about 
four  miles  west  of  Jerusalem,  as  the  home  of  Zacharias.1 
It  is  now  called  by  the  natives  Ain  Karim,  and  is  thus  de- 
scribed by  Porter  (L  233) :  u  Ain  Karim  is  a  flourishing  vil- 
lage, situated  on  the  left  bank  of  Wady  Beit  Haniua.  In  the 
midst  of  it,  on  a  kind  of  platform,  stands  the  Franciscan  con- 
vent of  St.  John  in  the  Desert.  The  church  is  large  and 
handsome,  and  includes  the  site  of  the  house  of  Zacharias, 
where  St.  John  Baptist  was  born.  It  is  in  a  kind  of  grotto, 
like  all  the  other  holy  places,  and  is  profusely  ornamented 
with  marble,  bas-reliefs,  and  paintings.  In  the  centre  of  the 
pavement  is  a  slab,  with  the  inscription,  Hie  Praeeursor  Do- 
mini natus  est.  About  a  mile  distant  is  the  place  known  to 
the  Latins  by  the  name  of  the  Visitation.  It  is  situated  on 
the  slope  of  a  hill,  where  Zacharias  had  a  country  house. 
Tradition  says  that  the  Virgin  Mary,  on  her  visit,  first  went 
to  Elisabeth's  village  residence,  but  not  finding  her  there, 
proceeded  to  that  in  the  country,  where  accordingly  took 
place  the  interview  related  in  Luke  i.  39-55.  The  spot  is 
marked  by  the  ruins  of  a  chapel,  said  to  have  been  built 
by  Helena.  About  one  mile  farther  is  the  grotto  of  St.  John, 
containing  a  little  fountain,  beside  which  the  place  is  shown 
where  he  was  accustomed  to  rest." 

Ain  Karim  has  found  a  recent  supporter  of  its  tradition- 
ary claim  in  Thomson,  (ii.  537,)  who  finds  no  reason  "  why 
the  home  of  the  Baptist  should  be  lost  any  more  than  the 
site  of  Bethlehem,  or  Bethany,  or  Nazareth,  or  Cana." 
Tobler,  however,   traces  these   traditional  claims  of  Ain 

»  Sec  Earl\  Travels,  287  and  461. 


48  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE    LORD. 

Karim  only  to  the  beginning  of  the  16th  century.  Accord, 
ing  to  Raumer,  a  still  older  tradition  designated  Beth 
Zacharias  as  the  place  of  John's  birth.  The  point  is 
in  itself  of  very  little  importance.  We  need  not  infer,  as 
some  have  done,  (so  Meyer,)  from  the  Evangelist's  silence, 
that  he  was  ignorant  where  Zacharias  lived,  but  only  that 
he  did  not  think  it  important  to  mention  it. 

That  Elisabeth  left  her  own  house,  and  went  to  some 
obscure  dwelling,  where  she  might  be  hidden  from  all  ob- 
servation for  a  time,  is  not  improbable ;  yet  the  text  is  con- 
sistent with  the  supposition  that,  continuing  at  home,  she 
withdrew  herself  from  the  eyes  of  visitors. 

Mabch— April,  749.     5  b.  c. 

In  the  sixth  month  of  Elisabeth's  conception,  the  Angel  Luke  i.  26-38. 
•f  the  Lord  was  sent  to  Nazareth,  a  village  in  Galilee,  to  a 
virgin  named  Mary,  who  was  betrothed  to  a  man  named  Matt.  i.  20. 
Joseph,  of  the  house  of  David,  to  announce  to  her  that  she 
should  be  the  mother  of  the  Messiah. 

The  most  important  point  that  meets  us  here  is  the  re- 
lation of  Mary  to  the  house  of  David.  Was  she  of  that 
royal  family  ?  But  before  we  consider  it,  let  us  sum  up 
what  is  known,  either  from  the  Gospels  or  from  tradition, 
of  the  personal  history  of  Joseph  and  of  Mary. 

Joseph  is  distinctly  declared  by  Matthew  to  have  been 
of  the  house  of  David  through  Solomon,  and  his  genealogi- 
cal register,  going  back  to  Abraham,  is  given.  (Matt  i. 
1-18.)  In  his  dream  the  angel  addresses  him  as  "the  son 
of  David,"  (v.  20.)  So  by  Luke  (i.  27)  he  is  said  to  be  of 
"  the  house  of  David,"  (also  ii.  4.)  He  was  thus  of  royal 
descent,  though  occupying  an  humble  position  in  society. 
His  calling  was  that  of  a  tcktwv,  or  carpenter,  or,  as  the 
word  may  mean,  any  worker  in  wood.1  He  was  generally 
»  Thilo,  Codex  Apoc.,  368,  note. 


THE  MOTHER  OP  THE  LORD.  49 

believed  by  the  early  Church  to  have  been  an  old  man  at 
the  time  he  was  espoused  to  Mary,  and  is  so  represented  in 
the  earliest  paintiugs  of  the  Holy  Family.1  In  later  pictures 
he  is  represented  as  younger,  and  from  thirty  to  fifty  years 
of  age.  According  to  Epiphanius,  he  was  more  than  eighty ; 
whilst  in  the  Apocryphal  Gospel,  "  Historia  Josephi,"  he  is 
said  to  have  been  ninety,  and  his  age  at  the  time  of  his  death 
111  years.'  It  is  not  improbable  that  he  may  have  been  con- 
siderably older  than  Mary,  as,  though  alive  twelve  years  after 
Christ's  birth,  (Luke  ii.  42,)  his  name  is  not  afterward  men- 
tioned ;  a  circumstance  most  easily  accounted  for  upon  the 
supposition  that  he  was  dead  before  the  Lord  began  His 
ministry.  Some  have  inferred  from  Luke's  words,  (ii.  51,) 
that  He  was  subject  unto  His  parents,  that  Joseph  lived  till 
He  had  reached  manhood.  Tradition  also  relates  of  him, 
that  he  was  a  widower,  and  the  father  of  four  sons  and  two 
daughters.  This  point  of  a  prior  marriage  will  be  consid- 
ered when  we  come  to  inquire  who  were  the  Lord's  breth- 
ren. 

Of  Mary,  the  Gospels  give  us  even  less  information  than 
of  Joseph.  In  Matthew,  her  name  only  is  mentioned,  and 
no  allusion  is  made  to  her  family  or  lineage.  In  Luke,  she 
is  simply  spoken  of  as  a  virgin ;  and  only  incidentally  is  it 
mentioned  that  Elisabeth,  the  wife  of  Zacharias,  was  her 
"  cousin,"  or  relative,  crvyycv^,  (i.  36.)  But  the  silence  of 
the  Gospels  is  amply  compensated  by  the  fulness  of  tradi- 
tion.' We  thus  learn  that  she  was  the  daughter  of  Joachim 
(Eliachim  or  Eli)  and  of  Anna,  her  father  being  of  Naza- 
reth, and  her  mother  of  Bethlehem.  They  seem,  however, 
to  have  resided  at  Jerusalem,  as  the  church  of  St.  Anne 
is  said  to  have  been  built  over  the  grotto  which  was  the 
birthplace  of  the  Virgin.*     Yet  another  tradition  makes 

»  Jameson :  "  Legends  of  the  Madonna." 

>  Thilo,  Codex  Apoc.,  861,  note ;  Hofmann,  62. 

•  Hofmann,  5.  *  Robinson,  i.  283. 


50  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

them  to  have  resided  at  Sef-furieh,  a  village  a  few  miles 
north  of  Nazareth.1  Many  fables  are  related  of  the  miracles 
heralding  her  birth,  of  her  education  at  Jerusalem  in  the 
Temple,  of  her  vow  of  perpetual  virginity,  and  of  her  mar- 
riage to  Joseph.*  That  she  was  young  at  the  time  of  her 
marriage,  we  may  infer  from  the  fact  that  females  were 
married  in  the  East  at  a  very  early  age,  generally  from 
fourteen  to  seventeen,  and  often  earlier.'  The  Apocryphal 
Gospels  make  her  to  have  been,  some  twelve,  and  some 
fourteen,  when  betrothed  to  Joseph.  The  latter  was  more 
generally  received  in  later  times,  though  a  few  theologians 
make  her  to  have  been  twenty-four  or  twenty-five  when  Je- 
sus was  born,  ut  perfecta  mater  perfectum  JUium  gigneret.* 
No  allusion  is  made  in  any  of  the  Evangelists  to  her  parents, 
or  to  any  brothers,  but  Mary  the  wife  of  Cleophas  is  spoken 
of  as  her  sister,  (John  xix.  25,)  though  this  relationship,  as 
we  shall  hereafter  see,  has  been  called  in  question. 

From  the  statements  of  Luke,  (i.  26 ;  ii.  4,)  we  naturally 
infer  that  both  Joseph  and  Mary  resided  at  Nazareth  at  the 
time  of  the  Annunciation.  But  some  have  maintained  (see 
Meyer)  that  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  statements  of 
Matthew,  (ii.  22,  23,)  which  show  that  he  then  dwelt  at 
Bethlehem.  But  there  is  no  real  discrepancy.  None  of  the 
Evangelists  tells  us  where  Joseph  lived  before  he  was 
espoused  to  Mary.  Matthew,  relating  the  circumstances 
connected  with  the  birth  of  Christ,  (i.  18-25,)  makes  no  al- 
lusion to  the  place  where  they  occurred.  He  does  not 
mention  Nazareth  or  Bethlehem.  Afterward,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  (ii.  1,)  he  speaks  of  Bethle- 
hem as  His  birthplace,  and  mentions  that  Joseph  intended 
to  return  thither  from  Egypt  after  Herod's  death,  and  that 
through  divine  direction  he  was  made  to  change  his  pur- 
pose, and  go   and  dwell  at  Nazareth.     All  this  proves 

1  Robinson,  ii.  846.  »  See  Apocryphal  Gospels,  Baronius,  Sepp. 

»  Greswell,  i.  398.  «  Hofmann,  52. 


MABY   OP  THE   HOUSE    OP   DAVID.  51 

nothing  respecting  his  previous  residence  at  Bethlehem. 
Matthew  relates  only  the  fact  that  the  child  was  born 
there ;  Luke  tells  us  how  it  happened  that  this  was  His 
birthplace.  Matthew  states  that  it  was  Joseph's  purpose 
to  return  there  from  Egypt,  but  unable  to  do  so  he  went 
to  Nazareth ;  Luke  states  only  that  leaving  Bethlehem  he 
went  to  Nazareth.  The  only  ground  for  supposing  that 
Joseph  had  formerly  resided  there  is  found  in  his  purpose 
to  return  thither ;  but  this  is  easily  explained  as  springing 
from  the  desire  to  rear  the  child  of  David's  line  in  David's 
city.  That  he  had  no  possessions  there  is  apparent  from 
Luke's  statement  respecting  the  circumstances  of  Mary's 
confinement.  The  only  interest  that  Matthew  takes  in 
Nazareth  or  Bethlehem  is  from  the  connection  in  which 
these  two  cities  stand  to  the  Messianic  prophecies,  (ii.  5-6, 
and  23.)  In  itself  it  was  of  no  moment  to  him  where  either 
Joseph  or  Mary  had  lived  before  the  birth  of  Jesus,  nor 
indeed  after  it,  except  so  far  as  their  residence  was  His. 

We  now  turn  to  the  question  of  the  Davidic  descent  of 
Mary.  If  we  set  aside  for  the  present  the  genealogical 
table  in  Luke  (iii.  23-38)  as  of  doubtful  reference,  there  is 
no  express  declaration  that  she  was  of  the  house  of  David. 
The  reference  to  her,  (Luke  L  27,)  though  formerly  defended 
by  many,  and  lately  by  Wieseler,1  is  very  doubtful."  Some 
have  supposed  that  she  went  with  Joseph  to  Bethlehem  at 
the  time  of  the  taxing,  (Luke  ii.  5,)  because  she,  like  him, 
was  a  descendant  of  David.*  This  journey,  however,  may 
be  explained,  as  will  soon  appear,  on  other  grounds.*  This 
silence  respecting  Mary,  contrasted  with  the  prominence 

>  Stud  u  Krit,  1846. 

*  Against  it  Bengel,  Meyer,  Patritius,  Alford,  Fairbairn. 

*  80  Robinson's  Harmony,  186 ;  Mill,  209 :  "  The  words  distinctly  in- 
dicate that  Mary  accompanied  Joseph  for  the  purpose  of  being  enrolled  her- 
self." 

*  Patritius  finds  in  Mary's  supposed  vow  of  perpetual  virginity  a  proof 
that  she  was  an  heiress,  and  married  to  Joseph  as  a  kinsman. 


52  THE  LIFE  OP   OUB  LORD. 

given  to  the  Davidic  descent  of  Joseph,  has  led  many  to 
suppose  that  the  Evangelists  attached  no  importance  to  her 
lineage,  but  only  to  her  conjugal  relation  to  him.  As  his 
wife  she  became  a  true  member  of  David's  family.  Her 
child  belonged  to  him  according  to  the  principle  which  lay 
at  the  foundation  of  marriage  amongst  the  Jews,  that  what 
was  born  of  the  wife  belonged  to  the  husband.  As  it  had 
no  human  father,  and  as  he  adopted  it,  it  became  in  fact 
his,  and  inherited  whatever  rights  or  privileges  belonged  to 
Davidic  descent.  Since  then  through  His  legal  relationship 
to  Joseph  Jesus  could  truly  be  said  to  be  of  the  house  and 
lineage  of  David,  it  was  wholly  unimportant  to  specify  the 
family  of  Mary.1  That  she  was  however  in  fact  of  David's 
line,  is  maintained  by  most  who  regard  the  feet  as  in  itself 
unimportant,  or  not  proved. 

When  we  compare  the  very  remarkable  declarations  of 
the  prophets  respecting  the  Messiah,  as  the  son  of  David, 
with  their  historical  fulfilment  as  recorded  by  the  Evan- 
gelists, it  may  at  first  appear  that  they  refer  to  Him  rather 
as  the  adopted  and  legal  son  of  Joseph  than  as  the  son  of 
Mary.  Had  His  descent  through  His  mother  been  regarded 
as  the  true  fulfilment  of  the  prophetic  predictions,  and  of 
the  covenant  with  David,  would  the  Evangelists  have  passed 
it  by  without  distinct  mention  ?  We  might  therefore  infer 
from  their  silence  respecting  Mary's  relation  to  David,  that 
they  regard  her  royal  lineage  as  not  essential  to  the  fulfil- 
ment of  prophecy.  Joseph  had  a  good  title  to  the  throne; 
and  Jesus  as  his  son  stood  in  his  stead,  the  rightful  Heir  of 
all  the  Covenant  promises.' 

The  question  of  the  Davidic  idescent  of  Mary  thus  re- 
garded becomes  one  of  secondary  interest,  as  no  promise 

i  So  lately  Da  Costa,  Fairbairn. 

8  So  Da  Costa,  who  supposes  Mary  to  have  been  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  See 
contra  Spanheim,  Dubia  Evangelica,  i.  128,  against  Antonius,  who  defends 
this  view.  See  also  an  able  paper  on  this  side  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra  of  April, 
1861,  by  G.  M'Clellan. 


MARY   OP  THE   HOUSE  OF  DAVID.  53 

of  God  is  made  dependent  upon  it.  But  if  we  take  higher 
ground  and  seek  more  than  a  legal  relationship,  there  is 
good  reason  to  believe  that  she  was  of  the  royal  family, 
and  that  thus  Jesus  was  in  every  sense  the  son  of  David. 
Peter  upon  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  30)  declared  that  in  Him 
was  fulfilled  the  oath  which  God  sware  to  David  "  that  of 
the  fruit  of  his  loins  according  to  the  flesh  He  would  raise 
up  Christ  to  sit  on  his  throne."  This  language,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  phraseology  of  the  original  promise, 
(2  Sam.  vii.  12,)  "I  will  set  up  thy  seed  after  thee  which 
shall  proceed  out  of  thy  bowels,"  seems  to  point  to  Jesus 
as  his  lineal  descendant.  The  words  of  Paul  readily  bear 
the  same  interpretation  (Acts  xiii.  23):  "Of  this  man's 
seed  hath  God  according  to  His  promise  raised  unto  Israel 
a  Saviour,  Jesus."  Again,  he  says,  (Rom.  i.  3,)  "  Which  was 
also  made  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh."  (See 
also  Isaiah  xi.  1 ;  2  Tim.  ii  8 ;  Heb.  vii.  14 ;  Rev.  xxii.  16.) 
In  the  words  of  the  angel  to  her,  (Luke  i.  32,)  "  the  Lord 
God  shall  give  unto  Him  the  throne  of  His  father  David," 
it  is  intimated  that  as  her  son  He  was  son  of  David,  and  so 
heir  of  the  throne.     (See  also  Luke  i.  69.) 

The  prominence  given  by  Matthew  to  the  Davidic  de- 
scent of  Joseph,  and  his  silence  respecting  the  family  of 
Mary,  finds  a  ready  explanation  in  the  peculiarities  of  his 
Gospel  as  designed  for  the  Jews.  Its  very  first  sentence 
gives  the  clue  to  its  right  understanding :  "  The  book  of 
the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  Abraham,  the 
son  of  David."  He  aims  to  show  that  Jesus  is  the  heir  of 
the  two  great  Jewish  covenants,  that  with  Abraham,  and 
that  with  David.  To  this  end  he  must  establish  first,  that 
Joseph,  Jesus'  legal  father,  was  of  David's  house  and  so  a 
lawful  heir  of  the  dignity  promised  in  the  covenant ;  sec- 
ond, that  Jesus  stood  in  such  relation  to  Joseph  as  Himself 
to  have  legal  claim  to  all  promises  belonging  to  the  latter. 
He  therefore  brings  prominently  forward  in  the  beginning 


54  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

of  his  Gospel  the  fact  that  Joseph  was  of  royal  lineage,  and 
cites  his  genealogical  register  in  proof.  To  have  said  that 
Mary  was  of  the  house  of  David,  and  to  have  cited  her 
genealogy,  would  have  availed  nothing,  as  it  was  a  rule  of 
the  Rabbins,  and  one  universally  recognized,  that  "  the  de- 
scent on  the  father's  side  only  shall  be  called  a  descent ; 
the  descent  by  the  mother  is  not  called  any  descent"  '  He 
could  not  therefore  speak  of  Jesus  as  son  of  Mary,  even 
had  it  been  generally  known  that  she  was  of  David's  line, 
for  as  such  he  had  no  royal  rights.  It  was  only  as  the  son 
of  Joseph  that  he  could  be  the  heir  of  the  covenants.  Mat- 
thew must  therefore  bring  forth  clearly  the  legal  relation 
in  which  Jesus  stood  to  Joseph  as  his  adopted  son,  but  for 
his  purpose  it  was  wholly  unimportant  who  his  mother  was. 
Hence  he  says  very  little  of  Mary,  mentioning  only  her 
name,  and  without  any  explanatory  remarks  except  respect- 
ing her  relation  as  a  betrothed  virgin,  but  says  much  of  Jo- 
seph. His  silence,  therefore,  so  easily  explained  from  the 
character  of  his  Gospel,  respecting  Mary's  lineage,  proves 
nothing  against  her  Davidic  descent. 

In  our  examination  of  this  point  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  from  the  earliest  period  the  testimony  of  the 
Church  has  been  that  Mary  was  of  David's  family."  This 
was  a  matter  of  fact  about  which  the  Apostles  and  early 
Christians  could  not  well  have  been  ignorant ;  and  it  is 
difficult  to  see  how  such  a  belief,  if  not  well  founded,  could 
have  become  so  early  and  universally  prevalent. 

The  allusion  (Luke  i.  36)  to  kinship  between  Mary  and 
Elisabeth  determines  nothing  respecting  the  family  of  the 
former,  as  the  term  used  denotes  simply  kindred,  or  rela- 
tionship without  defining  its  degree.  As  all  the  tribes 
might  intermarry,  Mary  might  have  been  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah,  though  Elisabeth  was  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  It  was 
early  said  that  the  Lord  was  both  of  kingly  and  priestly  de- 

1  Da  Costa,  474.  •  Meyer  on  Matthew,  i.  17 ; 


THE  TWO   GENEALOGIES.  55 

scent,  by  Joseph  on  the  one  side  and  Mary  on  the  other.1 
Bat  this  has  no  foundation. 

Thus  we  find  sufficient  grounds  aside  from  the  genea- 
logical table  of  Luke  to  regard  Jesus  as  the  son  of  David 
through  His  mother.  Yet  the  question,  to  whom  does  this 
table  refer,  is  one  of  no  little  interest,  as  well  as  difficulty, 
and  worthy  of  our  careful  examination. 

The  fact  that  there  should  be  two  genealogies  of  Jesus 
given  is  in  itself  a  remarkable  and  perplexing  one,  and  the 
most  obvious  explanation  is  that  presented  by  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  His  birth.  As  the  legal  son  of  Joseph, 
the  genealogy  of  His  father  must  be  given ;  as  the  son  of 
Mary  and  without  any  earthly  father,  her  lineage  becomes 
His.  Yet  in  point  of  fact  this  explanation  in  early  times 
found  few,  or  no  advocates ;  the  general  opinion  being  that 
both  tables  were  those  of  Joseph.'  But  how  could  the 
same  person  have  two  such  differing  lines  of  ancestors? 
The  most  probable  answer  is  that  which  refers  the  table  of 
Matthew  to  the  legal  successors  of  the  throne  of  David, 
and  that  of  Luke  to  Joseph's  paternal  ancestors.'  The 
former  gives  those  who  were  the  legal  heirs  to  the  king- 
dom. The  line  of  Solomon  failed  in  Jechonias,  (Jer.  xxii. 
30,)  and  the  right  of  succession  then  passed  over  to  the 
line  of  Nathan  in  the  person  of  Salathiel.  From  Joseph 
a  younger  son  of  Juda,  or  Abiud  of  that  line,  Joseph,  the 
husband  of  Mary,  traced  his  descent.  The  family  of  the 
elder  son  becoming  extinct,  Matthan,  Joseph's  grandfather, 
became  the  heir.  This  Matthan  had  two  sons,  Jacob  and 
Heli.  The  elder  Jacob  had  no  son,  but  probably  a  daugh- 
ter, the  Virgin  Mary.  The  younger  Heli  had  a  son  Joseph, 
who  thus  became  both  heir  to  his  uncle  and  to  the  throne. 

1  Testamentum  12  Patriarchum,  in  Lardner,  ii.  830.    Hofmann,  7. 

*  Mill,  1U6,  aays :  "  We  find  no  tradition  more  clear,  more  perpetual  and 
universal." 

*  So  Hervey  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  666. 


56  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

Thus  Mary  and  Joseph  were  first  cousins,  and  the  genea- 
logical tables  have  equal  reference  to  both.  \ 

Both  tables  were  referred  to  Joseph  by  Africanus,  (220 
a.  d.,)  whose  solution  of  their  difficulties  is  given  by  Euse- 
bius,  (i.  V.)  It  supposes  that  Melchi  and  Matthan,  Joseph's 
grandfathers  in  the  two  genealogies,  the  one  being  of  the 
family  of  Nathan,  the  other  of  the  family  of  Solomon,  had 
married  successively  the  same  woman,  Estha,  by  whom  the 
former  had  Eli,  and  the  latter  Jacob.  Eli  and  Jacob  were 
thus  brothers  uterine,  though  by  their  fathers  of  different 
families.  Eli  married  and  died  childless,  and  Jacob  accord- 
ing to  the  Jewish  law  married  his  widow,  and  had  by  her  a 
son  Joseph,  who  was  in  the  eye  of  the  law  the  son  of  the 
deceased  Eh*.  According  to  Jewish  custom  the  pedigree 
is  recorded  following  both  descents,  the  legal  and  the  natu- 
ral, that  of  Eli  given  by  Luke  in  the  line  of  Nathan,  and 
that  of  Jacob  given  by  Matthew  in  the  line  of  Solomon.1 

It  deserves  to  be  noticed  that  Africanus  affirms  that  his 
account  is  not  an  idle  conjecture,  nor  incapable  of  proof, 
but  came  from  the  relatives  of  the  Lord,  who  "  gloried  in 
the  idea  of  preserving  the  memory  of  their  noble  extrac- 
tion." Whether  his  statement  respecting  the  destruction 
of  the  Jewish  family  registers  by  Herod  is  historically  true 
has  been  often  doubted.8  Of  this  mode  of  solution  by  ref- 
erence to  the  ancient  law  of  Levirate  marriages,  Lightfoot 
says,  (on  Luke  iii.  23,)  "There  is  neither  word,  nor  reason, 
nor  indeed  any  foundation  at  all."3 

But  whilst  the  early  Church  generally  ascribed  both 
tables  to  Joseph,  many  since  the  Reformation  have  strenu- 
ously maintained  that  Luke  gives  the  genealogy  of  Mary. 
And  this  view  has  not  a  little  in  its  favor.     It  is  not  im- 

1  Some,  in  later  times,  reversed  this,  making  Joseph  the  natural  son  of 
Eli  and  legal  son  of  Jacob. 

»  So  Hervey  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  663 ;  contra,  Sepp,  ii.  106. 
»  See,  however,  Mill,  201. 


THE  TWO  GENEALOGIES..  57 

probable  that  the  tables  given  by  Matthew  and  Luke  are 
to  be  regarded  as  copies  of  family  registers  to  which  they 
had  access,  and  which  they  give  as  they  found  them.  It 
is  said  that  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  were 
guided  by  the  Spirit  to  make  any  corrections,  for  only  as 
exact  copies  would  the  Jews  deem  them  of  validity.1  This 
must  be  taken  with  some  limitations.  It,  however,  would 
not  forbid  the  insertion  of  an  explanatory  clause  not  affect- 
ing the  order  of  the  descent.  Looking  at  the  table  in  Luke 
in  this  light,  we  find  it  thus  introduced  (iii.  23)  :  "  And  Je- 
sus Himself  began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age,  being  (as 
was  supposed)  the  son  of  Joseph— -of  Eli,"  <fcc.  The  text  is 
thus  given  by  Tischendorf :  mv  vio«,  o>s  evo/xi£ero,  rov  laxn;0, 
Ac. — u  being  son,  as  was  supposed,  oT  Joseph,"  <fcc.  The 
first  point  to  be  determined  is  respecting  the  explanatory 
statement  here  made  by  the  Evangelist.  Is  it  only  "  as 
was  supposed,"  or  rather  "  as  was  supposed,  son  of  Joseph  "  ? 
If  the  latter  be  taken,  then  the  table  proper  would  read, 
"  being  (as  was  supposed,  son  of  Joseph)  son  of  Eli,"  <fcc. 
If  the  former  be  taken  it  would  read,  "  being  (as  was  sup- 
posed) son  of  Joseph — of  Eli,"  <fcc 

If  now,  to  determine  the  construction  of  this  clause,  we 
consider  the  general  scope  of  Luke's  Gospel,  we  observe 
that  he  has  already  stated  at  length  that  Jesus  was  the  son 
of  Mary  through  the  immediate  power  of  God.  None  of 
his  readers  could  therefore  suppose  that  he  here  speaks  of 
Joseph  as  His  natural  father.  If,  like  Matthew,  it  was  his 
purpose  to  found  Christ's  Messianic  claims  upon  His  legal 
relationship  to  Joseph,  he  would,  like  him,  give  Joseph's 
genealogical  table.  But  such  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
his  purpose.  Had  he  designed  to  set  forth  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  he  would  in  some  way  have  designated  the  cove- 
nants with  Abraham  and  David,  which  were  the  basis  of 
all  Messianic  hopes.    But  no  allusion  is  made  to  these  cove- 

i  So  Morrison. 
3* 


58  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB  LOED. 

nants,  nor  any  prominence  given  to  Abraham,  or  David, 
and  the  genealogy  is  continued  upward  to  Adam.  We  do 
not  therefore  find  grounds  for  believing  that  Luke  had  in 
view,  like  Matthew,  the  proof  that  Jesus  as  the  legal  son 
of  Joseph  was  the  promised  Messiah.  What  then  is  his 
purpose  ?  It  is  one  in  conformity  with  the  general  scope 
of  his  Gospel,  which  was  designed  for  Gentiles,  and  takes 
little  note  of  the  special  relations  of  the  Jews  to  God.  After 
giving  a  full  narrative  of  the  Lord's  miraculous  conception 
and  birth,  and  a  brief  mention  of  His  baptism,  as  prepara- 
tory to  His  public  ministry,  he  proceeds  to  give  His  gene- 
alogy on  that  side  only  on  which  it  could  be  really  given, 
that  of  His  mother.  Through  her  He  was  made  man,  and 
through  her  should  His  descent  from  Adam  be  traced. 

If  upon  these  grounds  we  assume  that  Luke  gives  the 
genealogy  of  Mary,  let  us  note  the  force  of  his  explanatory 
statement.  Why  does  he  insert  the  clause,  "  as  was  sup- 
posed, son  of  Joseph"?  Is  it  that,  being  about  to  give  Jo- 
seph's genealogy  as  the  legal  father  of  Jesus,  he  thinks  it 
necessary  to  insert  a  declaration  that  he  was  not  His  true 
father  ?  This  in  view  of  the  previous  narrative  seems  su- 
perfluous, for  he  had  already  shown  Him  to  be  the  son  of 
God.  And  it  is  plainly  incongruous  to  assert  that  He  was 
not  the  son  of  Joseph,  and  then  proceed  to  give  Joseph's 
genealogy,  unless  he  would  make  prominent  His  legal  son- 
ship,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  he  has  not  done.  If,  however, 
we  suppose  that  he  designs  to  give  the  Lord's  descent 
through  His  mother,  the  bearing  of  the  parenthetical  clause 
is  obvious.  By  the  Jews  at  large  he  was  regarded  as  the 
son  of  Joseph,  and  some  explanation  therefore  was  neces- 
sary why,  contrary  to  all  usage,  the  mother's,  not  the 
father's,  genealogy  should  be  given.  This  explanation  is 
made  in  the  statement  that  He  was  supposed  to  be  son 
of  Joseph.  "  Jesus,  generally  but  erroneously  supposed  to 
be   son  of  Joseph,  was  the  son   of  Eli,  *of  Matthan,  of 


THE  TWO   GENEALOGIES.  59 

Levi,"  &c.  That  Mary's  own  name  is  not  mentioned  makes 
no  difficulty,  since  the  mention  of  female  names  was  contrary 
to  usage  in  such  tables,  and  as  she  had  already  been  dis- 
tinctly mentioned  as  His  mother,  there  was  no  danger  of 
misapprehension.  Her  name  being  omitted,  Jesus  must  be 
brought  into  immediate  connection  with  her  father,  His 
grandfather.  That  He  is  called  son,  not  grandson,  is  unim- 
portant, the  former  term  being  often  used  to  express  the 
more  distant  relationship.  That  it  is  not  strictly  used 
throughout  the  table  is  apparent  from  v.  38,  where  Adam 
is  called  the  am  of  God.  That  Eli  is  not  expressly  said  to 
be  Mary's  father  is  not  essential,  since  the  form  of  the  table 
implies  the  degree  of  relationship.1 

Some,  who  regard  the  table  in  Luke  as  that  of  Mary, 
and  Eli  as  her  father,  suppose  that  Joseph  is  brought  into 
it  as  his  son-in-law  or  adopted  son.*  If  it  be  admitted  that 
this  degree  of  relationship  may  be  thus  expressed,  it  is 
doubtful  whether  it  would,  without  express  mention,  find 
place  in  a  table  in  which  only  the  direct  line  of  descent  is 
given.  Jesus,  having  no  earthly  father,  may  well  be  called 
the  son  of  Eli,  although  strictly  grandson,  from  the  neces- 
sity of  the  case,  but  the  same  reason  does  not  hold  in  the 
case  of  Joseph. 

Thus  the  two  tables  given  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  re- 
garded as  those  of  Joseph  and  of  Mary,  are  in  beautiful 
harmony  with  the  scope  of  their  respective  Gospels.  Through 
that  of  Matthew  Jesus  is  shown  to  be  the  heir  of  David  as 
the  legal  son  of  Joseph ;  through  that  of  Luke,  to  be  of 
David's  seed  according  to  the  flesh  by  His  birth  of  Mary. 
The  former  beginning  with  Abraham,  the  father  of  the 
chosen  people,  descends  through  David  the  king,  to  Christ 
the  royal  heir,  in  whom  all  the  national  covenants  should  be 

1  That  the  Jews  80  regarded  him  is  shown  by  Lightfoot  on  Luke  iii.  28 ; 
Sepp,  ii.  8. 

»  Robinson's  Harmony,  186.    Alexander. 


60  THE  LIFK   OF  OUR  LORD. 

fulfilled  ;  the  latter  beginning  with  the  second  Adam,  the 
eternally  begotten  Son  of  God,  ascends  to  the  first  Adam, 
the  son  of  God  by  creation.  Each  Evangelist  gives  His 
genealogy  in  that  aspect  which  best  suits  his  special  pur- 
pose ;  to  the  one  He  is  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  to  the 
other  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 

The  opinions  of  modern  scholars  upon  this  point  are 
about  equally  divided.  Among  those  who  regard  Luke's 
table  as  that  of  Mary,  not  of  Joseph,  are :  Newcome,  Rob- 
inson, Greswell,  Lange,  Wieseler,  Riggenbach,  Auberlen, 
Ebrard,  Krafft,  Bloomfield,  Alexander,  Oostierzee.  Contra 
— Alford,  Meyer,  Winer,  Bleek,  Fairbairn,  Da  0bsta,  Fried- 
lieb,  Patritius,  Mill,  Ellicott,  Westcott. 

Our  purpose  does  not  lead  us  to  consider  further  the 
special  features  of  these  genealogies.  Regarding  them  as 
copies  of  family  registers,  documents  for  whose  accuracy  in 
every  point  the  Evangelists  are  not  responsible,  any  real 
or  seeming  discrepancies  do  not  affect  their  credibility,  un- 
less disproving  the  fundamental  fact  of  Christ's  descent 
from  Abraham  and  David.  But  in  this  fact  both  tables 
agree,  and  any  minor  inaccuracies,  if  there  be  such,  are  un- 
important.1 

That  Joseph  was  the  legal  heir  to  the  throne  of  David 
his  relation  to  Jesus,  the  promised  Messiah,  sufficiently 
shows.  Whether  he  and  Mary  were  the  only  surviving 
descendants  of  David  we  have  no  positive  data  to  decide ; 
but  it  is  not  probable,  for  if  they  had  been  the  sole  survi- 
vors, this  very  fact,  which  could  not  have  been  unknown, 
must  have  made  them  conspicuous.  Hegesippus"  makes 
mention  of  the  grandchildren  of  Juda,  the  brother  of  the 
Lord,  who  were  brought  before  Domitian,  as  being  of  Da- 

1  Those  who  will  see  the  questions  respecting  the  divisions  in  Matthew's 
tables,  his  abridgments  and  omissions,  and  the  relations  of  his  table  to  that 
of  Luke,  will  find  all  points  fully  treated  by  Mill,  147.  See  also  Ebrard,  188, 
and  the  Dubia  Evangelica  of  Spanheim,  Pars  Prima. 

a  In  Eusebius,  iii.  20. 


DECAY   OP  DAVID'S  HOUSE.  61 

vid's  race.  Not  improbably  there  were  many  in  more  or 
less  distant  affinity  to  this  royal  family.  It  has  been  sup- 
posed by  some,  that  the  residence  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  so 
far  from  their  ancestral  seat,  in  despised  Galilee  and  in  one 
of  its  most  obscure  villages,  is  to  be  explained  by  the  fact 
that  they  were  generally  known  to  be  of  David's  line,  and 
so  exposed  to  the  jealousy  of  Herod.1  But  of  this  there  is 
no  proof.  It  is  rather  to  be  explained  as  a  sign  of  the  fallen 
state  of  that  once  royal  house.  Its  members  were  now 
amongst  the  humblest  of  the  people,  too  humble  to  arouse 
the  jealousy  of  the  Idumean  usurper.  We  do  not  learn 
that  in  the  course  of  his  reign  he  took  any  precautionary 
measures  against  any  of  the  descendants  of  David,  looking 
upon  them  as  claimants  of  the  throne.  The)  seem  to  have 
sunk  wholly  out  of  public  sight.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  expectation  that  the  Messiah  should  spring  from  the 
house  of  David,  was  strong  and  general.'  How  can  these 
facts  be  reconciled  ?  If  the  people  were  really  looking  for 
a  Messiah  descended  from  that  family,  must  not  all  who 
were  known  to  be  members  of  it  have  occupied  a  large 
space  in  public  attention  ? 

Perhaps  the  following  may  be  the  just  solution  of  the 
difficulty.  The  promise  made  to  David  and  his  house  re- 
specting the  throne  of  Israel  was  not  absolute.  (2  Sam.  vii. 
12,  <fcc.)  Its  fulfilment  was  to  depend  upon  the  condition 
of  obedience.  Yet  if  the  condition  failed  the  promise  was 
not  withdrawn.  His  descendants  were  not  reduced  to  the 
rank  of  private  citizens,  but  its  fulfilment  was  suspended, 
and  their  kingly  claims  were  in  abeyance.  After  the  return 
from  the  captivity  of  Babylon,  the  house  of  David,  at  first 
prominent  in  Zerubbabel,  fell  more  and  more  into  obscurity. 

I  So  Bucher. 

*  According  to  Mill,  (285,)  it  was  with  the  view  to  obviate  this  national 
expectation  that  Herod,  two  years  before  his  death,  imposed  an  oath  of  fidel- 
ity to  Caesar  and  himself.  This  is  hardly  warranted  by  the  language  of 
Josephus. 


62  THE  LIFE   OF   OTTE  LORD. 

Other  families  began  to  he  prominent.  At  last,  the  Macca- 
bees through  their  wisdom  and  valor  won  the  highest 
place,  and  became  the  acknowledged  heads  of  the  nation — 
both  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  chiefs.  After  their  decay 
the  family  of  Herod  through  Roman  favor  became  domi- 
nant. During  these  400  years  no  one  of  David's  lineage 
seems  to  have  been  conspicuous,  or  in  any  way  to  have 
drawn  to  himself  public  attention ;  and  probably  little  faith 
existed  among  the  people  at  large  that  the  Divine  promise 
would  have  any  fulfilment  in  that  house.  But  the  Mes- 
sianic hopes  of  the  Jews  had,  during  the  wars  of  the  Macca- 
bees, and  under  the  usurpation  of  Herod,  been  constantly 
gaining  in  depth  and  strength.  Everywhere  they  began  to 
turn  to  their  Scriptures,  and  to  read  them  with  new  ear- 
nestness  and  faith.  And  as  the  expectation  of  the  Messiah 
became  more  and  more  prevalent,  it  was  naturally  con- 
nected with  the  promise  to  David.  Yet  among  his  descend- 
ants there  was  no  one  to  whom  public  attention  was  turned 
as  in  any  way  likely  to  fulfil  their  hopes.  Hence,  while  a 
general  belief  existed  that  the  Messiah  should  be  of  that 
family,  its  individual  members  continued  to  live  in  obscu- 
rity. And  as  it  was  also  firmly  believed  that  Elijah  the 
prophet  must  personally  come  as  the  forerunner  of  the  Mes- 
siah, this  belief  would  naturally  prevent  any  special  atten- 
tion being  turned  to  them  till  that  prophet  actually  ap- 
peared. Thus  Joseph,  the  carpenter  of  Nazareth,  might 
have  been  known  to  be  of  David's  line,  and  even  the  legal 
claimant  of  the  throne,  and  yet  live  unhonored  and  unno- 
ticed. 

Nazareth  and  its  geographical  position  will  hereafter  be 
more  particularly  spoken  of.  It  is  disputed  where  Mary  was 
when  the  angel  visited  her  to  announce  the  Lord's  birth.1 
The  Greek  Church  affirms  that  she  was  not  at  her  own  house 
when  he  came,  but  had  gone  to  the  fountain  of  the  village, 

1  See  Hofmaun,  74. 


MARY'S   VISIT  TO   ELISABETH  63 

and  that  he  found  her  there.1  Over  this  fountain,  the  source 
of  the  present  one,  to  which  its  waters  are  conducted  by  a 
stone  aqueduct,  the  Greeks  have  built  a  church  which  is 
called  the  Church  of  the  Annunciation.  The  Latins  affirm 
that  the  angel  found  her  in  a  grotto,  over  which  stood  the 
house  that  was  carried  in  the  thirteenth  century  by  angels, 
first  to  Dalmatia,  and  thence  to  Italy,  where  it  still  remains.' 
The  exact  places  in  this  grotto  where  the  angel  and  the  vir- 
gin stood  during  their  interview  are  marked  out  by  two 
pillars.  Over  this  grotto  now  stands  a  church,  which  is 
said  to  be,  after  that  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  the  most  beau- 
tiful in  Syria.*  Tradition  also  points  out  the  workshop  of 
Joseph,  now  a  Latin  chapel.  The  time  of  Gabriel's  appear- 
ance was,  according  to  Bengel,  (in  loco),  at  evening,  ves- 
peri,  ut  probabile  est.    See  Dan.  ix.  21. 


March — April,  749.    5  b.  o. 

Immediately  after  the  visit  of  the  angel  Mary  left  Naz-  Luke  L  39-66. 
areth,  and  went  to  the  home  of  Zacharias  in  the  hill-coun- 
try of  Judah,  and  remained  there  about  three  months. 

It  has  been  supposed  that  Mary  remained  at  Nazareth 
several  weeks  before  visiting  Elisabeth,  and  that  during 
this  period  the  events  related  by  Matthew  (i.  18-25)  oc- 
curred.4 But  with  this,  Luke's  statement,  (i.  39,)  that  "she 
went  with  haste  into  the  hill-country,"  is  inconsistent ;  for 
going  with  haste  cannot  refer  merely  to  the  rapidity  of  the 
journey  after  it  was  begun,  but  to  the  fact  that  she  made 
no  delay  in  commencing  it.  Hug  refers  to  a  traditionary 
law  that  virgins  should  not  travel,  and  that  therefore  Jo- 
seph must  previously  have  taken  her  home  as  his  wife.    Al- 

1  8e«  Protevangelium  Jacobi,  ch.  ii. 

1  See  Baronius,  who  affirms  that  no  one  should  doubt  respecting  the 
reality  of  this  miracle.    In  refutation,  Stanley,  439. 

»  Porter,  ii.  861.    Stewart,  445.  *  Ebrard,  Alford. 


64  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD. 

ford  says  that  "  as  a  betrothed  virgin  she  could  not  travel," 
but  cites  no  authority.  But  if  any  such  law  were  at  this 
time  in  force,  which  is  very  doubtful,  Mary  may  have  jour- 
neyed in  company  with  friends,  or  under  the  special  protec- 
tion of  a  servant,  or  with  a  body  of  neighbors  going  up  to 
the  Passover.  That  no  unmarried  female  could  journey 
even  to  visit  her  friends  is  incredible.  "The  incidental 
mention  of  women  and  children  in  the  great  assemblies 
gathered  around  Jesus  is  true  to  Oriental  life,  strange  as  it 
may  appear  to  those  who  read  so  much  about  female  seclu- 
sion in  the  East.  In  the  great  gatherings  of  this  day,  at 
funerals,  weddings,  feasts,  and  fairs,  women  and  children 
often  constitute  the  largest  portion  of  the  assemblies."1 
Ebrard's  supposition  (222)  that  Mary  continued  at  Naza- 
reth till  certain  suspicious  women,  the  pronubcB,  informed 
Joseph  of  her  condition,  and  that  then  God  made  known 
to  him  what  had  occurred,  has  nothing  in  its  favor.  As 
little  basis  has  the  supposition  that  she  told  Joseph  of  the 
visit  of  the  angel.*  The  narrative  plainly  implies  that  Mary, 
without  communicating  to  him,  or  any  one  else,  what  had 
taken  place,  departed  immediately  to  seek  Elisabeth.9  That 
under  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  she  was  placed 
she  should  greatly  desire  to  see  Elisabeth,  was  natural,  and 
it  is  most  improbable  that  she  should  wait  several  weeks, 
when  all  this  time  she  could  have  no  communication  with 
Joseph  except  through  these  pronubae.  The  whole  narra- 
tive shows  that  neither  Elisabeth  nor  Mary  rashly  forestalled 
God's  action.  Both,  full  of  faith,  waited  in  quietness  and 
silence  till  He  should  reveal  in  His  own  way  what  He  had 
done.  Perhaps  the  expression,  (Luke  i.  56)  "  she  returned 
to  her  own  house,"  «s  rov  oikov  aimys,  may  imply  that  she 
had  not  yet  been  taken  to  the  house  of  Joseph. 

The  distance  from  Nazareth  to  Jerusalem  is  about 

*  Thomson,  ii.84.  *  So  Lange. 

>  So  Tischendorf,  Robinson,  Lichtenstein. 


JOSEPH   TAKES    MARY    HOME.  65 

eighty  miles,1  and  if  Zacharias  lived  at  Hebron  seventeen 
miles  south  of  Jerusalem,  the  whole  journey  would  occupy 
four  or  five  days.  Several  routes  were  open  to  Mary.  The 
most  direct  was  by  Nain  and  Endor,  and  through  Samaria 
and  southward  by  Bethel.  If  for  any  cause  Samaria  was  to 
be  avoided,  the  Jordan  could  be  crossed  near  Scythopolis, 
and  the  way  followed  through  Perea  along  its  eastern  bank. 
This  was  the  common  route  with  the  Jews  in  their  journey- 
ings  to  the  feast,  if  they  wished  specially  to  avoid  Samaria. 
Still  a  third  way  was  by  Dor  on  the  sea-coast,  passing 
through  Lydda,  and  thence  over  the  mountains  of  Ephraim. 

June,  749.    5  b.  c. 

A  little  before  the  birth  of  John,  Mary  returns  to 
Nazareth ;  Joseph,  seeing  her  condition,  is  minded  to  put  Matt.  i.  18-25. 
her  away  privily,  but  is  commanded  by  God,  through  an 
angel,  to  take  her  home  as  his  wife,  for  that  which  is 
conceived  of  her  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  obeys  the 
word,  and  takes  Mary  as  his  wife.  Elisabeth  gives  birth 
to  a  son,  who  is  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day,  and  nam-  Lckk  i.  5*7-80. 
ed  John  in  obedience  to  angelic  direction. 

Whether  Mary  left  Elisabeth  before  or  after  John's 
birth,  is  not  expressly  stated,  but  the  most  natural  con- 
struction of  the  narrative  is  that  it  was  before. 

The  interval  that  had  elapsed  between  the  Annunciation 
and  Mary's  return  from  Judea,  was  sufficient  to  make  man- 
ifest to  Joseph  her  condition.  That  she  at  this  time  inform- 
ed him  of  the  visit  of  the  angel,  and  of  the  divine  promise, 
is  not  said  in  so  many  words,  but  is  plainly  implied.  The 
position  in  which  Joseph  was  now  placed  was  one  of  great 
perplexity ;  and  as  a  just  man  who  desired  to  mete  out  to 
•very  one  that  which  was  his  due,  he  was,  on  the  one  hand, 
unwilling  to  take  her  under  such  imputation  of  immorality, 
yet,  on  the  other  hand,  unwilling  to  condemn  her  where  there 
i  Kitto,  Sepp,  80-90  Roman  miles. 


66  THE    LIFE   OP    OUR  LOBD. 

was  a  possibility  of  innocence.  He  therefore  determines  to 
put  her  away  privately,  which  he  could  lawfully  do,  and  so 
avoid  the  necessity  of  exposing  her  to  public  disgrace,  or 
of  inflicting  upon  her  severe  punishment.  Whilst  yet  in 
doubt  as  to  his  proper  course,  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  in  a 
dream,  confirmed  the  statement  of  Mary,  and  directed  him 
to  call  her  son  by  the  name  of  Jesus,  as  the  future  Saviour 
of  His  people.  Agreeably  to  the  divine  commandment, 
Joseph  takes  Mary  at  once  to  his  own  house  as  his  wife. 

While  these  things  were  taking  place  in  Galilee,  John 
was  born  in  Judea,  and  was  circumcised  at  the  legal  time. 
It  was  customary  to  join  the  giving  of  the  name  with  the 
performance  of  this  rite.  This  custom  seems  to  have  origi- 
nated in  the  fact  that  Abraham's  name  was  changed  at 
the  time  he  was  circumcised.1  (Gen.  xvii.  23.)  The  name 
John,  given  the  Baptist  by  the  angel,  is  of  importance,  as 
showing  the  purpose  of  God  in  his  ministry.  It  means 
"  the  Grace  of  God,"  or  "  one  whom  Jehovah  bestows," 
and  indicated  that  God  was  about  to  begin  an  economy  of 
grace,  in  distinction  from  the  economy  of  the  law.  His 
ministry,  like  that  of  Jesus,  was  for  mercy,  not  for  judg- 
ment. 

Dec,  749.    5  b.  c. 

In  consequence  of  an  edict  that  all  the  world  should 
be  taxed,  Joseph  and  Mary  leave  Nazareth  to  go  to  Beth-    Luke  ii.  1-5. 
lehem,  the  city  of  David,  to  be  taxed  there. 

The  chronological  and  other  questions  connected  with 
this  taxing  are  undoubtedly  among  the  most  perplexing 
which  meet  us  in  the  whole  Gospel  narrative.  The  former 
have  been  already  considered,  but  the  latter  demand  a 
careful  examination.  Before  we  proceed  to  consider  them, 
let  us  note  the  character  of  the  Evangelist's  statements, 
and  his  general  purpose. 

»  Winer,  ii.  138. 


THE  TAXING  OP   AUGUSTUS.  67 

Turning  to  Luke's  words,  (ii.  1-3,)  we  find  that  he 
speaks  in  very  brief  and  comprehensive  terms.  An  edict 
had  been  issued  by  the  Emperor  Caesar  Augustus,  "  that 
all  the  world  should  be  taxed,  and  this  taxing  was  first 
made  when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria."  In  obedi- 
ence to  this  edict,  all  went  to  be  taxed,  each  into  his  own 
city.  This  is  all  the  information  the  Evangelist  gives.  He 
does  not  say  when  this  edict  was  issued,  nor  what  were  its 
peculiar  features,  nor  give  any  account  of  its  execution, 
except  in  Judea.  Its  only  apparent  value  to  him,  and  the 
only  cause  that  leads  him  to  mention  it  is,  that  it  was  the 
occasion  that  brought  Joseph  and  Mary  to  Bethlehem. 
He  therefore  speaks  of  it  only  in  the  most  general  way,  and 
we  cannot  learn  from  him  whether  it  was  a  mere  enrolment 
of  persons,  or  also  a  census  of  property ;  whether  it  em- 
braced  all  the  provinces  of  the  empire,  or  but  a  part ; 
whether  it  was  executed  at  once,  or  after  a  lapse  of  time, 
or  in  various  provinces  at  various  times.  He  is  concerned 
only  with  its  immediate  relations  to  the  birth  of  Jesus  at 
Bethlehem,  and  does  not  mention  even  the  manner  of  its 
execution  in  Judea,  whether  by  Herod  and  his  officers,  in 
obedience  to  imperial  direction,  or  by  a  special  commissioner 
from  Rome,  or  by  the  governor  of  some  adjoining  province. 
In  the  absence  of  definite  statements  in  the  Gospels,  we 
turn  to  contemporary  history,  but  here  a  like  silence  meets 
us.  How  little  the  historians  of  those  times  record  of  the 
period  from  750-760,  we  shall  soon  see. 

In  our  examination  of  this  subject  we  shall  consider : 
1st.  The  nature  and  extent  of  this  taxing ;  2d.  The  proof 
that  it  actually  took  place ;  3d.  Its  connection  with  Cyre- 
nius. 

First,  the  nature  and  extent  of  this  taxing.  The  word 
translated  taxing,  cwroypa^,  means  "properly  transcrip- 
tion, then  inscription,  both  of  persons  and  things."  '  It  may 

1  Alexander. 


68  THE  LIFE  OP  OUE  LOED.  , 

therefore  denote  simply  an  enrolment  or  enumeration  of 
persons,  a  descriptio  capitum  ;  or  may  involve  also  a  regis- 
tration of  property  upon  which  taxes  are  to  be  assessed. 
For  the  latter,  however,  the  Greeks  had  a  special  word, 
aTrvrifi-qais.1  To  this  corresponded  the  Latin  term  census, 
whose  first  object,  according  to  Greswell,2  was  to  ascertain 
the  value  of  property ;  but,  according  to  Winer,  aTroypa<f>-rj 
was  generally  used  by  Grecian  writers  upon  Roman  matters 
as  equivalent  to  census.  That  it  is  used  by  Luke  in  the 
latter  sense  in  the  only  other  passage  of  his  writings, 
(Acts  v.  37,)  in  which  it  is  found,  is  plain. 

From  the  term  itself,  then,  no  certain  inference  can  be 
drawn.  It  may  have  been  an  enrolment  of  the  people,  with 
a  view  to  learn  the  number  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  em- 
pire, and  for  general  statistical  purposes ;  or  it  may  have 
had  direct  reference  to  taxation.  If  we  turn,  then,  from  the 
term  itself  to  the  context,  to  learn  its  meaning,  it  is  said 
that  no  census  of  property  can  be  referred  to,  as  there  is  no- 
where in  the  narrative  any  allusion  to  patrimony  or  inheri- 
tance, and  that  Joseph  and  Mary  could  have  had  no  posses- 
sions at  Bethlehem.*  A  more  forcible  argument  upon  this 
side  is  the  fact  that  there  was  a  rebellion  of  the  Jews  against 
the  attempt  to  impose  taxes  upon  them  under  Cyrenius,  at 
a  later  period.4  (Acts  v.  37.)  This  implies  that  there  had 
been  no  previous  attempt  to  tax  them,  and  that  the  regis- 
tration now  in  question  was  one  of  persons  only,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  amount  of  population.6  On  the  other  hand, 
Meyer  insists  that  Luke  puts  this  taxing  upon  the  same 
footing  as  that  of  Cyrenius,  as  an  enrolment  for  taxation, 
and  that  not  future  but  immediate.  Most,  however,  take  a 
middle  view,  supposing  Augustus  in  his  edict  to  have  refer- 
ence to  taxation,  but  not  designing  that  it  should  at  once 
take  effect.* 

»  Winer,  ii.  398.    Ebrard,  169.        »  i.  541.        »  Greswell,  L  542. 

4  Josephus'  Antiquities,  18.  1. 1. 

»  So  Alford,  and  many.  •  So  Ewald,  v.  20. 


THE   TAXING   OF   AUGUSTUS.  69 

It  seems  most  probable,  all  things  considered,  that  this 
enrolment  had  reference  both  to  persons  and  property. 
That  Augustus,  now  in  the  prime  of  life  and  undisputed 
master  of  the  empire,  should  desire  to  establish  a  general 
and  uniform  system  of  taxation,  finds  support  in  his  general 
character  and  policy.  But  he  was  far  too  wise  a  man  to 
hasten  matters  prematurely,  or  to  force  disagreeable  meas- 
ures upon  disaffected  provinces.  If,  then,  this  enrolment 
was  with  reference  to  taxation,  in  its  execution  he  would  be 
governed  by  policy.  The  first  step  was  to  learn  the  num- 
ber of  the  inhabitants,  their  names,  tribes,  families,  &c, 
and  together  with  this,  to  make  a  registration  of  property 
as  the  basis  for  the  assessment  of  taxes.  But  considerable 
time  may,  and  in  many  cases  must  have  elapsed  between 
the  enrolment  and  the  subsequent  collection  of  such  taxes. 
H  therefore,  we  suppose  that  Joseph  and  Mary  went  to 
Bethlehem,  not  simply  to  have  their  names  registered,  but 
also  to  give  account  of  their  possessions,  it  would  by  no 
means  follow  that  taxes  were  then  and  there  collected  of 
them.  If  this  had  been  so,  we  may  well  be  surprised  that 
no  disturbance  should  then  have  taken  place  among  the 
people  at  large,  as  did  take  place  a  few  years  later.  The 
preliminary  steps,  though  pointing  to  a  future  exercise  of 
power  in  the  actual  assessment  and  collection  of  taxes, 
could  give  no  tangible  ground  of  offence. 

It  has  been  said  by  many,  that  this  edict  was  confined  to 
the  Holy  Land,  and  did  not  apply  to  the  whole  empire.1 
But  the  weight  of  authority  is  decidedly  the  other  way." 
The  phrase  iraou  rj  oucov/xo^,  "  all  the  world,"  when  used  in 
the  Gospels,  (Acts  xi.  28,  is  in  dispute,)  beyond  question  re- 
fers to  the  Roman  Empire  as  embracing  at  that  time  the 
greater  part  of  the  habitable  world.  But  while  the  edict  thus 
had  application  to  the  whole  empire,  and  may  have  looked 

>  See  Lardner,  i.  267. 

«  So  Meyer,  Greswell,  Wieseler,  Ebrard,  Alford. 


70  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

• 

forward  to  some  general  system  of  taxation  as  the  final  re- 
sult, yet  in  a  kingdom  composed  of  so  many  heterogeneous 
and  discordant  provinces,  its  execution  in  each  must  have 
been  governed  by  circumstances.  A  ruler  wise  as  Augus- 
tus would,  in  a  province  like  Judea,  temporize  and  wait  for 
a  favorable  opportunity,  rather  than  meet  the  perils  of  re- 
bellion. It  is  not  improbable,  therefore,  that  years  may 
have  passed  before  the  edict  was  carried  fully  into  effect. 

Second,  the  proof  that  such  a  taxing  actually  took  place 
confirmatory  of  the  statement  of  the  Evangelist.  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  there  is  no  express  statement  in  any  contempo- 
rary writer  of  such  a  taxing  or  census  at  this  time,  and 
embracing  the  whole  empire,  whether  as  a  registration  of 
persons,  of  property,  or  for  general  statistical  purposes. 
Suetonius'  relates  that  Augustus  three  times  held  a  census, 
and  from  the  Ancyran  monument  we  learn  that  these  were 
held  in  726,  746,  and  767  ;  but  it  is  probable  that  they 
were  confined  to  Italy,  and  did  not  extend  to  the  provinces.* 
But  that  the  census  did  at  times  extend  to  particular  prov- 
inces, is  beyond  question.  Thus  there  was  one  in  Gaul,  one 
in  Spain,  and  Strabo  alludes  to  them  as  not  uncommon.*  If 
then  Augustus  held  a  census,  now  in  Italy  and  now  in  the 
provinces,  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  fact  that  he 
should  hold  one  throughout  the  empire.  And  there  are 
several  circumstances  mentioned  by  writers  of  that  period 
that  confirm  this  supposition.  That  there  was  a  geometri- 
cal survey  of  the  Roman  Empire,  which,  if  not  commenced, 
was  carried  out  by  Augustus,  seems  to  be  well  established.* 
Of  the  Roman  chorographic  maps,  Merivale  says  (iv.  426) : 
"  They  measured,  we  may  believe,  not  only  the  roads,  but 
the  areas  which  lay  between  them ;  the  labors  of  a  quarter 
of  a  century  produced  no  doubt  a  complete  registration  of 
the  size,  the  figure,  and  the  natural  features  of  every  prov- 

1  Aug.  c.  27.  ■  Wieseler,  91.    Greswell,  i.  535. 

»  Lardner,  i.  263.    Greswell,  i.  536.        *  Wieseler,  77-31.    Sepp,  i.  136. 


THE  TAXING   OP  AUGUSTUS.  71 

ince,  district,  and  estate  throughout  the  empire."  And  that 
with  such  a  survey  a  general  census  should  be  connected 
is  antecedently  probable.  The  statement  of  Suidas,  (Lex. 
airoypa<t*r},)  that  u  Augustus  sent  out  twenty  men  of  great 
probity  into  all  parts  of  his  empire,  by  whom  he  made  an 
assessment  of  persons  and  estates,"  is  indeed  unsupported 
by  any  other  author,  but  has  no  intrinsic  improbability.1 
We  know  also  from  Tacitus'  that  Augustus  had  a  little 
book  which  he  had  written  out  with  his  own  hand,  and 
which  contained  accounts  of  the  numbers  of  soldiers,  of  the 
taxes,  imposts,  and  the  like :  Opes  publics  continebantur. 
Quantum  civium,  sociorumque,  in  armis ;  quas  classes,  regna, 
provinciffi  tributa,  aut  vectigalia  et  necessitates  et  largi- 
tiones,  quae  cuncta  sua  maim  perscripserat  Augustus.  This 
breviarium  imperii  is  mentioned  also  by  Suetonius  and  Dio 
Cassius,  and  must  have  been  based  upon  governmental  sur- 
veys of  all  parts  of  the  empire.  As  has  been  said  by  Pri- 
deaux,  it  was  probably  something  of  the  same  kind  as  the 
Doomsday  Book  of  William  the  Conqueror. 

If  all  the  facts  do  not  prove  with  absolute  certainty  that 
Augustus  did  ever  order  a  general  census,  they  go  far,  at 
least,  to  make  it  probable,  and  thus  to  confirm  the  Evangel- 
ist's statement.  Lardner  (i.  267)  objects  chiefly  upon  the 
ground  of  the  silence  of  the  Roman  historians.  But  in  the 
history  of  Dio  Cassius  there  is  a  great  gap  from  747-757, 
the  very  period  in  which  Luke  states  this  taxing  to  have 
been  held.  Suetonius  is  very  brief,  as  also  Tacitus.  The 
argument,  therefore,  from  the  silence  of  contemporary 
writers  is  of  little  force,  and  if  pushed  to  its  extreme  would 
compel  us  to  believe  that  no  important  event  took  place  in 
the  long  reign  of  Augustus  of  which  the  few  historians 
whose  works  remain  to  us  in  whole,  or  in  part,  have  not 
made  specific  mention.' 

Third.    The  connection  of  this  taxing  with  Cyrenius. 

»  Greswell,  i.  537.  »  Ann.,  i.  11.  »  See  Ebrard,  171. 


72  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD. 

"We  have,  already,  in  the  essay  upon  the  date  of  Christ's 
birth,  examined  the  point  whether  Cyrenius  was  not  twice 
governor  of  Syria,  and  found  strong  grounds  to  believe  that 
this  was  the  case.  If  so,  his  first  administration  was  from 
the  autumn  of  750  to  753,  and  the  taxing  now  in  question 
was  the  first  as  distinguished  from  the  second,  which  took 
place  during  his  second  administration,  some  ten  years  later. 
But  as  some  degree  of  doubt,  from  the  scantiness  of  our 
data,  must  necessarily  rest  upon  this  conclusion,  let  us  sup- 
pose, as  has  usually  been  done,  that  he  was  not  governor 
of  Syria  till  760,  and  examine  Luke's  statement  from  this 
point  of  view. 

The  first  point  that  meets  us  is  the  right  construction 
of  the  Evangelist's  words:  "this  taxing  was  first  made 
when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria,"  avrrf  y  airorypa<f>rj 
irpurrq  cycvero,  rjy(fwv€vovro<;  Trjs  Svpias  Kvprjviov.  If  this  be 
read,  this  was  the  first  taxing;  in  distinction  from  a  second, 
and  took  place  under  him  as  governor  of  Syria,  but  in  fact 
he  was  not  so  governor  till  760,  we  must  construe  the  term 
riyefxovcvovTos,  "  governing,"  in  its  wide  sense  as  applicable 
to  any  one  who  fills  a  place  of  rule.  Thus  understood,  Cy- 
renius, though  not  the  governor,  may  have  been  a  joint,  or 
assistant  ruler,  as  Josephus '  speaks  of  Saturninus  and  Vo- 
lumnius  as  the  presidents  of  Syria.  Or  he  may  have  been 
an  extraordinary  commissioner  sent  from  Rome  especially 
for  this  purpose.8  In  all  this  there  is  nothing  intrinsically 
improbable,  and  it  agrees  with  the  fact  that  he  was  about 
that  time  in  the  East,  and  engaged  in  political  affairs.  It 
corresponds  also  to  the  statements  of  the  fathers,  except 
Tertullian,  that  this  taxing  was  by  Cyrenius.  Still,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  obvious  import  of  Luke's  words  is,  that 
he  was  then  the  governor  over  Syria,  not  an  assistant,  and 
still  less  a  commissioner  appointed  to  a  special  service  in  a 
neighboring  kingdom. 

»  Antiq.  16.  9.  •  Lardner,  i.  829.    Wieseler,  113. 


TAXING   OF  AUGUSTUS.  IS 

According  to  another  construction  of  Luke's  words, 
taking  irp<trrr]  for  irpurrepov,  this  taxing  was  before  Cyrenius 
was  governor  of  Syria.1  So  understood,  it  was  the  purpose 
of  the  Evangelist  to  distinguish  between  the  two  taxings, 
taking  for  granted  that  all  knew  that  the  second  was  under 
Cyrenius.  But  admitting  that  the  Greek  will  bear  this  in- 
terpretation, still  had  this  been  Luke's  meaning  it  would 
have  been  more  naturally  expressed  another  way. 

Most  English  commentators  have  preferred  the  follow- 
ing construction ;  this  taxing  was  first  made — i.  e,  carried 
into  effect,  when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria.'  The 
enrolment  was  made  at  the  time  of  the  Lord's  birth,  but  its 
actual  execution  was  deferred  some  nine  or  ten  years,  or 
till  Judea  was  made  a  Roman  province.  This  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  Luke's  words,  since  the  enrolment  was  only 
preparatory  to  the  assessment  and  collection  of  the  taxes, 
and  the  latter  may  have  been  delayed  by  political  difficul- 
ties till  the  time  of  Cyrenius. 

Some,  as  Lardner,  (i.  333,)  would  make  iry«/Aowovros  nryi 
Svpuxs  to  be  merely  an  official  title,  and  to  imply  not  that 
Cyrenius  was  then  actually  governor,  but  that  he  had  at 
some  previous  period  of  his  life  filled  the  office.  Having 
been  governor,  the  title  continued  to  cleave  to  him,  and  by 
it  he  was  generally  designated  and  best  known.  This,  how- 
ever, is  forced. 

But  some  objections  still  remain  to  be  considered.  First, 
that  this  taxing  could  not  have  taken  place  in  Herod's  life- 
time, because  inconsistent  with  the  political  relations  of  his 
kingdom  to  the  Empire.  It  still  had  a  nominal  independ- 
ence, and  was  not  converted  into  a  province  till  the  banish- 
ment of  his  son  Archelaus.  In  this,  however,  is  little  force.' 
The  relations  between  Rome  and  her  dependent  kingdoms 

1  So  Usher,  Whitby,  Tholuck,  Wieseler,  Ewald,  Greswell. 
•  Middleton,  Hales,  Campbell,  Norton.    So  among  the  Germans,  Ebrard, 
Lange,  Lichtenstein. 
»  Winer,  ii.  899. 
4 


74  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB  LORD. 

were  constantly  fluctuating ;  and  what  rights  and  privileges 
she  should  at  any  time  give  them,  was  a  matter  of  policy.1 
Judea  was  well  known  to  Augustus  as  full  of  discontent  and 
sedition,  and  there  can  scarce  be  a  doubt  that  it  was  his 
purpose  even  before  Herod's  death  to  reduce  it,  so  soon  as 
circumstances  permitted,  to  the  rank  of  a  province.  Besides, 
the  personal  relations  of  Augustus  and  Herod  had  a  little 
before  this  become  far  from  friendly,9  and  therefore  the 
former  was  not  likely  to  be  governed  in  his  actions  by  mere 
considerations  of  good  will.  And  Herod  could  offer  no 
effectual  resistance  to  any  measure  the  Emperor  might  pro- 
pose. He  was  now  old  and  greatly  hated  by  the  Jews,  and 
without  Roman  assistance  could  not  have  been  sure  of  his 
kingdom  for  a  day. 

If,  then,  Augustus  designed  this  enrolment  as  only  pre- 
paratory to  taxation,  and  if  Herod  looked  upon  it  as  an 
infringement  of  his  royal  rights,  he  could  only  submit.  Re- 
sistance would  only  have  brought  his  own  downfall  and  the 
downfall  of  his  family.  And  it  is  most  probable  that  the 
execution  of  the  measure  was  given  chiefly  into  his  hands. 
Two  facts  are  mentioned  by  Josephus,  both  of  which  have 
been  supposed  to  have  some  relation  to  this  taxing.  He 
speaks*  of  an  oath  which  all  the  Jews  were  obliged  to  take, 
giving  assurance  of  their  good  will  to  Caesar  and  to  the 
king's  government,  and  which  was  refused  by  six  thousand 
of  the  Pharisees.  This  is  supposed  by  Patritius  (iii.  171) 
to  refer  to  the  taxing  of  Luke.  But  this  took  place  under 
Saturninus  and  before  the  taxing.  He  speaks  also  of  an  in- 
surrection a  little  before  Herod's  death.4  This  insurrection, 
though  the  ostensible  cause  of  it  was  the  erection  of  a  golden 
eagle  over  the  great  gate  of  the  temple,  doubtless  had  far 

»  As  to  the  tribute  actually  paid  by  the  Jews  to  the  Romans,  see  Ore* 
well,  ii.  375 ;  and  as  to  the  autonomy  of  subject  provinces,  Merivale,  iv.  400. 
>  Josephus,  Antiq.,  16.  9.  3. 
»  Antiq.,  17.  2.  4.  *  Antiq.,  17.  6.  2. 


TAXING   OF  AUGUSTUS.  75 

deeper  roots,  and  very  probably  stood  in  direct  connection 
with  the  enrolment,  which  the  insurgents,  who  were  zealots 
for  the  law,  regarded  as  only  a  preliminary  step  to  their 
more  complete  subjugation  to  Rome. 

We  find  also,  in  these  statements  of  Josephus,  an  answer 
to  a  second  objection  that  such  an  enrolment  could  not  have 
taken  place  without  popular  disturbances,  such  as  took 
place  afterward,  and  are  mentioned  by  Luke,  (Acts  v.  37.) 
Both  just  before  and  after  Herod's  death  were  commotions 
which  showed  that  the  people  at  large  were  much  disquieted, 
although  there  was  no  general  resistance  to  Roman  rule. 
But  there  was  a  large  party  who  wished  that  Judea  might 
then  be  made  a  Roman  province,1  and  those  who  were  zeal- 
ous for  national  independence  were  now  by  no  means  so 
numerous  as  a  few  years  later.  The  enrolment,  therefore, 
might  have  been  carried  into  effect  without  producing  any 
general  rebellion,  however  a  few  excitable  spirits  may  have 
been  aroused  to  resistance. 

The  conspicuous  part  which  Cyrenius  played  in  this  tax- 
ing, so  conspicuous  that  Luke  connects  it  directly  with  his 
name,  will  surprise  no  one  who  considers  the  peculiar  state 
of  political  affairs.  Archelaus,  the  successor  of  Herod,  re- 
ceived but  half  of  his  father's  territories,  and  that  not  under 
the  name  of  king,  but  of  ethnarch.  He  ruled  only  by  suf- 
ferance, and  was  from  the  beginning  both  hated  and  de- 
spised by  the  Jews.  In  this  condition  of  things,  it  was 
natural  that  the  chief  direction  of  public  matters  should  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  governor  of  the  adjoining  province. 
Josephus  gives  ample  proof  how  ready  the  Romans  were 
under  Varus,  to  interfere  in  Jewish  quarrels,  and  with  what 
contempt  the  Syrian  governors  treated  the  subject  kings 
around  them.9  I£  also,  as  there  is  good  reason  to  believe, 
it  was  the  purpose  of  Augustus  at  the  tirst  favorable  oppor- 

»  Antiq.,  17.  11.  2.  •  Antiq.,  19.  8.  1. 


76  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

tunity  to  depose  Archelaus  and  to  reduce  Judea  to  a  prov- 
ince, we  shall  find  no  difficulty  in  believing  that  Cyrenius, 
as  governor  of  Syria,  might  then  have  conducted  the  taxing. 

But  how  is  the  silence  of  Josephus  in  regard  to  this 
matter  to  be  explained  ?  Whatever  may  have  been  his 
motives,  we  find  that,  in  point  of  fact,  he  does  pass  over  the 
whole  period  of  the  rule  of  Archelaus  almost  in  silence. 
He  mentions  no  governor  of  Syria  from  Varus,  750,  to 
Cyrenius,  760.  So  he  wholly  passes  over  the  Parthian  war 
under  Caius  Caesar.1  This  cannot  have  been  from  ignorance. 
Wieseler  (98)  supposes  that  he  concealed,  so  far  as  possible, 
all  that  testified  to  the  Messianic  hopes  of  the  Jews  and 
against  their  submission  to  Roman  domination.  His  men- 
tion of  Judas  of  Galilee,  who  headed  the  rebellion  at  the 
second  taxing,  is  very  brief.'  Lardner,  (i.  355,)  alluding  to 
this  latter  passage,  supposes  that  Josephus  avoids  the  men- 
tion of  these  contests  between  the  Jews  and  Romans,  be- 
cause the  principles  of  Judas  were  very  popular,  and  he 
must  offend  his  countrymen  on  the  one  hand,  or  the  Ro- 
mans on  the  other.  Thus  much  is  plain,  that  he  passes  over 
as  lightly  as  possible  every  thing  that  testifies  to  the  degra- 
dation of  his  people.* 

Thus,  in  various  ways,  the  difficulties  connected  with 
the  taxing  may  be  met  (though  it  cannot  be  said  that 
they  are  all  yet  removed),  if  we  assume  that  Cyrenius  was 
but  once  governor  of  Syria.  But  we  have  strong  historical 
evidence  that  he  twice  filled  this  office.  If  this  shall  be 
confirmed  by  further  investigations,  all  doubts  as  to  the 
literal  accuracy  of  Luke  will  be  removed. 

Why,  in  Joseph's  journey  to  Bethlehem,  Mary  should 
have  accompanied  him,  is  not  stated  by  the  Evangelist. 
Some  have  supposed  that  she  was  obliged  to  go,  in  order 
to  be  enrolled ;  but  neither,  according  to  Jewish  or  Romish 

»  Zumpt,  ii.  87.  »  Antiq.,  18.  1.  6. 

»  See  Journal  Sac.  Lit.,  vol.  vi.  292,  4c. 


BETHLEHEM.  77 

custom,  was  it  necessary  that  she  should  be  personally  pres- 
ent.1 Others  suppose  that  she  possessed  a  little  inheritance 
in  Bethlehem,  and  so  must  go  thither.*  But  this  is  without 
proof  and  against  probability ;  for,  if  she  had  had  posses- 
sions there,  she  would  scarce  have  been  compelled  to  go  to 
the  inn.  In  all  likelihood  she  went  with  Joseph  because,  at 
this  delicate  and  trying  period,  she  was  unwilling  to  be  left  at 
Nazareth  alone.  That  she  was  aware  of  the  prophecy  that 
the  Messiah  should  be  born  at  Bethlehem  is  not  improb- 
able ;  but  that  she  journeyed  there  with  a  design  thus  to 
ensure  its  fulfilment,'  is  not  consistent  with  the  general 
tenor  of  her  conduct. 


Dec,  749.    5  b.  o. 

Upon  the  arrival  of  Joseph  and  Mary  at  Bethlehem,  Luki  ii.  6-7 
they  could  find  no  room  at  the  inn,  and  took  refuge  in  a 
cottage  where  the  babe  was  born,  and  laid  in  the  manger. 

i 
The  village  of  Bethlehem,  "  house  of  bread,"  lies  about 

six  miles  south  of  Jerusalem  on  the  way  to  Hebron.    There 

was  another  city  or  village  of  this  name  in  Zcbulon,  (Josh. 

xix.  15,)  whence  this  is  called,  to  distinguish  it,  Bethlehem- 

Judah.    It  is  not  mentioned  in  the  catalogues  of  the  cities 

of  Judah.     In  Genesis  (xlviii.  7)  it  is  called  Ephrath,  and  in 

Micah  (v.  2)  Ephratah — an  epithet  given  it  because  of  its 

fruitfulness.    It  appears  in  Scripture  chiefly  in  connection 

with  the  house  of  David,  and  seems  never  to  have  been  a 

place  of  much  importance.     "  The  Jews  are  very  silent  of 

.this  city ;  nor  do  I  remember  that  I  have  read  anything  in 

them  concerning  it  besides  those  things  which  are  produced 

out  of  the  Old  Testament."  4     Micah  speaks  of  it  as  little 

amongst  the  thousands  of  Judah.     It  was  here  that  the 

»  See,  however,  Sepp,  ii.  68.  •  Olshausen,  Michaelis. 

•  So  Lange.  «  Lightfoot,  iii.  100. 


78  THE  LIFE  OP  OUB  LOED. 

fields  of  Boaz  lay,  in  which  Ruth  gleaned,  (Ruth,  ii.  4 ;) 
and  here  the  son  of  Obed  was  born.  Hither  came  Samuel, 
and  anointed  the  youthful  David  to  be  the  successor  of 
Saul.  That  the  Messiah  should  be  born  here  was  expressly 
declared  by  the  prophet  Micah,  (v.  2  ;)  and  the  Jews  seem 
to  have  had  no  question  as  to  his  meaning,  nor  ever  to  have 
doubted  the  literal  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy.  (Matt.  ii. 
6 ;  John,  vii.  42.) 

Bethlehem  lies  on  the  eastern  brow  of  a  ridge  that  runs 
from  east  to  west  a  mile  in  length,  and  is  surrounded  by 
hills.  From  the  highest  point  of  the  ridge  there  is  an  ex- 
tensive view  toward  the  south  and  east,  in  the  direction  of 
Jericho,  the  Dead  Sea,  and  the  mountains  of  Moab  beyond. 
There  are  deep  valleys  both  on  the  south  and  north ;  that 
on  the  north  stretches  toward  Jerusalem,  and  in  it  olives, 
figs,  almond-groves,  and  vineyards  are  found.  The  village 
has  one  street,  broad,  but  not  thickly  built.  The  present 
inhabitants  are  chiefly  occupied  in  the  manufacture  of  holy 
trinkets  and  relics,  beads,  crosses,  &c.,  for  the  pilgrims  who 
visit  Jerusalem. 

The  exact  spot  where  the  Lord  was  born,  has  been  the 
subject  of  anxious  investigation  and  of  zealous  controversy. 
All  the  information  upon  this  point  that  the  Scriptures 
give,  is  contained  in  the  words  of  Luke,  that  when  Joseph 
and  Mary  arrived  at  Bethlehem,  they  could  find  no  place 
at  the  inn,  or  khan ;  and  that,  when  Jesus  was  born,  she 
was  compelled  to  put  the  new-born  babe  in  a  manger,  farvr]. 
From  this  statement  some  have  inferred  that  the  manger 
was  in  a  stall  connected  with  the  inn  itself;1  but  this  is 
hardly  consistent  with  other  features  of  the  narrative. 
That  the  place  in  which  she  took  refuge  was  a  stall,  or  room 
where  cattle  were  lodged,  may  fairly  be  inferred  from  the 
mention  of  a  manger. 

The  place  now  shown  as  the  Lord's  birthplace  is  a 
»  Wilson,  Lands  of  the  Bible,  i.  392;  Kitto,  Life  of  Christ,  62. 


CAVE    OF  THE   NATIVITY.  79 

cave  southeast  from  the  town,  and  now  covered  by  the 
Latin  convent.  The  tradition  that  connects  this  cave  with 
His  birth  is  very  ancient.1  Robinson  (ii.  416)  speaks  of  it 
as  "  reaching  back  at  least  to  the  middle  of  the  second 
century."  Justin  Martyr  (150,  a.  d.)  mentions  it;  as  also 
Origen  about  a  hundred  years  later.  Queen  Helena  erected 
a  church  over  it,  (325  a.  d.)  Here  came  Jerome,  (400  a.  d.,) 
and  dwelt  for  many  years.  So  far  then  as  early  tradition 
can  authenticate  a  place,  this  seems  well  authenticated.3 
Yet  there  are  objections  which  have  led  many  to  deny  the 
truth  of  the  tradition/  The  point  then  demands  some  fur. 
ther  examination. 

The  objection,  that  Luke  says  nothing  of  a  cave,  is  not 
important.  His  purpose  is  simply  to  show  the  humble  and 
friendless  state  of  the  infant  child,  and  this  is  done  by  the 
mention  of  the  circumstances  that  there  was  no  room  for 
his  parents  in  the  inn,  and  that  when  He  was  born  He  was 
laid  in  a  manger.  Any  other  particulars  were  for  his  pur- 
pose unnecessary. 

A  more  important  objection  is  that  drawn  from  the 
fact,  that  tradition  makes  caves  or  grottoes  to  be  the  sites 
of  so  many  remarkable  events.  That,  as  was  long  ago  said  by 
Maundrell,  "  wherever  you  go,  you  find  almost  every  thing 
represented  as  done  under  ground,"  naturally  awakens  our 
incredulity.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  they  could  not  have 
been  so  generally  selected  for  such  sites,  unless  there  were 
some  grounds  of  fitness  in  the  selection.  The  scriptures, 
Josephus,  and  all  travellers  speak  of  the  numerous  caves 
that  are  found  throughout  Palestine.  They  were  used  for 
dwellings,  for  fortresses  and  places  of  refuge,  for  cisterns, 
for  prisons,  and  for  sepulchres.  Travellers  used  them  as 
inns,  robbers  as  dens,  herdsmen  as  stalls,  husbandmen  as 

»  8ee  Thilo,  Codex  Apoc,  i.  381,  note. 

*  See  a  full  statement  of  the  evidence  in  Patritius,  iii.  298. 

•  So  Bitter,  Robinson. 


80  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

granaries.  Many  of  these  caves  were  very  large.  One  is 
mentioned  (Judges  xx.  47)  large  enough  for  six  hundred 
men.  Bonar,1  in  reference  to  the  cave  of  Adullam,  says : 
"  you  might  spend  days  in  exploring  these  vast  apartments, 
for  the  whole  mountain  seems  excavated,  or  rather  honey 
combed."  Pococke  speaks  of  one  large  enough  for  thirty 
thousand  men. 

These  caves,  so  numerous  in  the  light  limestone  forma- 
tion of  Judea,  and  easily  wrought  into  any  shape,  and  always 
dry,  were  naturally  thus  applied  to  many  uses.  We  need 
not  be  surprised  to  find  them  connected  with  many  remark- 
able events,  and  hallowed  by  sacred  associations.  The 
traditions  that  connect  them  with  the  history  of  Jesus  are 
neither  to  be  indiscriminately  received,  nor  indiscriminately 
rejected.  Whether  a  particular  event  did,  or  did  not,  take 
place  in  a  grotto  is  to  be  judged  of  according  to  its  intrinsic 
probability,  and  the  amount  of  evidenoe.  Whilst  no  unpre- 
judiced person  will  be  disposed  to  put  the  site  of  the 
Annunciation  to  Mary,  or  of  the  Agony,  or  of  the  Ascen- 
sion, in  a  cave,  yet  all  recognize  the  cave  as  a  fitting  place 
for  the  sepulchre.  Whether  a  cave  was,  or  not,  the  birth- 
place of  the  Lord,  must  be  judged  of  by  its  own  merits. 

Thus  looking  upon  this  tradition,  we  find  no  sufficient 
reason  why  it  should  be  wholly  rejected.  Probably  there 
is  some  measure  of  truth  in  it.  It  is  indeed  hard  to  believe 
that  the  present  cave,  so  deep  down  and  inaccessible,  could 
ever  have  been  used  as  a  stall  for  cattle.  Perhaps  the  fact 
may  be  that  this  cave,  in  its  original  shape,  was  connected 
with  a  house  forming  its  rear  apartment,  and  used  as  a 
stable.  To  this  house  went  Joseph  and  Mary,  when  they 
could  find  no  room  at  the  inn,  and  when  the  child  was  born, 
it  was  laid  in  the  manger  as  the  most  convenient  place. 
ArculfJ  (a.  d.  700,)2  describing  the  cave  as  it  was  in  his 
day,  says :  "  At  the  extreme  eastern  angle  (of  the  ridge) 

»  Land  of  Promise,  246.  "  Early  Travels,  6. 


CAVE  OF  THE  NATIVITY.  81 

there  is  a  sort  of  natural  half-cave,  the  outer  part  of  which 
is  said  to  have  been  the  place  of  our  Lord's  birth :  the  inside 
is  called  our  Lord's  manger.  The  whole  of  this  cave 
is  covered  within  with  precious  marble."  Willibald  (a.  d. 
722)  says :  "  The  place  where  Christ  was  born  was  once  a 
cave  under  the  earth,  but  it  is  now  a  square  house  cut  in 
the  rock,  and  the  earth  is  dug  up  and  thrown  from  it  all 
around,  and  a  church  is  now  built  above  it."  Thus  the 
small  cave  that  originally  existed  in  the  rear  of  the  dwell- 
ing, and  was  used  as  a  stable,  has  been  gradually  converted 
into  its  present  shape. 

This  view  of  the  matter  is  defended  by  Thomson,  (ii.  533.) 
"  It  is  not  impossible,  to  say  the  least,  but  that  the  apart- 
ment in  which  our  Saviour  was  born  was  in  fact  a  cave.  I 
have  seen  many  such,  consisting  of  one  or  more  rooms  in 
front  of,  and  including  a  cavern  where  the  cattle  were  kept. 
It  is  my  impression  that  the  birth  actually  took  place  in  an 
ordinary  house  of  some  common  peasant,  and  that  the  babe 
was  laid  in  one  of  the  mangers,  such  as  are  still  found  in  the 
dwellings  of  the  farmers  of  this  region.  That  house  may 
have  stood  where  the  convent  does  now,  and  some  sort  of  a 
cave,  either  natural  or  made  by  digging  the  earth  away  for 
building,  and  for  the  roofs  of  houses,  may  have  been  directly 
below,  or  even  included  within  its  court."  Elsewhere  (ii. 
98)  he  thus  speaks  of  the  manger,  which  he  identifies  with 
fti  "crib"  mentioned  by  Isaiah  (i.  3) — "It  is  common 
to  find  two  sides  of  the  one  room,  where  the  native  farmer 
resides  with  his  cattle,  fitted  up  with  these  mangers,  an£  the 
remainder  elevated  about  two  feet  higher  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  the  family.  The  mangers  are  built  of  small  stones 
and  mortar  in  the  shape  of  a  box,  or  rather  of  a  kneading- 
trough,  and  when  cleaned  up  and  white-washed,  as  they 
often  are  in  summer,  they  do  very  well  to  lay  little  babes  in. 
Indeed  our  own  children  have  slept  there  in  our  rude  sum- 
mer retreats  on  the  mountains." 
4* 


82  THE   LIFE   OP   OUB   LOED. 

We  may  then  conclude  that  tradition  has  not  in  this 
case  erred.  The  site  of  the  Lord's  birthplace  must  long 
have  been  remembered  by  the  shepherds,  (Luke  ii  16,)  and 
been  generally  known  in  the  region  round.  But  the  pres- 
ent condition  of  the  cave  is  doubtless  very  unlike  its 
original  condition.  It  has  been  greatly  enlarged  and  deep- 
ened, and  space  made  in  various  directions  for  the  various 
accessory  grottoes  and  sepulchres  which  are  now  shown. 
In  this  way  all  the  statements  of  Luke  can  be  easily  recon- 
ciled with  the  tradition.  Here  was  the  cave  in  the  rear  of 
the  house,  and  used  for  cattle.  In  a  manger,  as  the  most 
ready  and  fitting  place,  the  babe  was  laid.  Hither  came  the 
shepherds,  to  pay  their  adorations,  and  here  probably  still 
later  came  the  Magi.  These  remarkable  events  would  not 
easily  pass  from  men's  memories,  and  some  knowledge  of 
the  spot  where  they  occurred  could  not  well  have  escaped 
the  early  disciples. 

The  church  that  now  stands  over  the  cave  of  the  na- 
tivity was  built  by  the  Emperor  Justinian  upon  the  site  of 
that  built  by  the  Empress  Helena,  a.  d.  330.1  Adjoining  it 
are  the  Latin,  Greek,  and  Armenian  convents,  whose  monks 
have  a  common  interest  in  it  for  purposes  of  worship.  It  is 
now  much  dilapidated,  though,  as  the  oldest  Christian  church 
in  the  world,  it  continues  to  possess  great  architectural  in- 
terest. The  cave  of  the  nativity  is  38  feet  long  by  11  wide, 
and  a  silver  star  in  a  marble  slab  at  the  eastern  end  marks 
the  precise  spot  where  the  Lord  was  born.  Here  is  the  in- 
scription :  Hie  de  virgine  Maria  Jesus  Ghristus  natus  est. 
Silver  lamps  are  always  burning  around,  and  an  altar  stands 
near,  which  is  used  in  turn  by  the  monks  of  the  convents. 
The  manger  in  which  the  Lord  was  laid  was  taken  to  Rome 
by  Pope  Sixtus  V.  and  placed  in  the  church  of  St.  Maria 
Maggiore,  but  its  place  is  supplied  by  a  marble  one.  A  few 

Tobler^  Bethlehem,  104. 


THE   ANGEL   AND   SHEPHERDS.  83 

feet  opposite,  an  altar  marks  the  spot  where  the  Magi  stood. 
The  walls  are  covered  with  silken  hangings. 

The  usual  exaggeration  of  tradition  may  be  seen  in  the 
many  apocryphal  sites  gathered  around  the  central  one. 
In  adjoining  grottoes  are  shown  the  chapel  of  Joseph  and 
the  chapel  of  the  Innocents,  where  the  children  murdered 
by  Herod  were  buried.  A  stone  is  also  shown  that  marks 
the  spot  where,  in  the  firmament  above,  the  star  stood  still 
that  guided  the  Magi  in  their  journey.  Of  more  interest  to 
the  Christian  scholar  is  the  cave,  now  converted  into  a 
chapel,  where  Jerome  lived,  studied,  and  prayed.  It  is 
said  by  Stanley,  (436,)  that  during  the  invasion  of  Ibrahim 
Pasha  the  Arabs  took  possession  of  the  convent,  and  found 
by  the  removal  of  the  marbles,  <fcc,  with  which  it  was  en- 
cased, that  the  grotto  of  the  nativity  was  an  ancient  sep- 
ulchre. If  this  were  so,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  Joseph 
and  Mary  would  have  entered  it.  But  the  statement  needs 
confirmation. 

That  the  Lord  was  born  very  soon  after  their  arrival  at 
1m  t  hlehem,  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  fact  that "  there 
was  no  room  for  them  in  the  inn." 


Dec,  749.    5  b.o. 

The  parae  night  upon  which  He  was  born,  an  Angel  Lukb  ii.  8-20. 
of  the  Lord  appeared  to  some  shepherds,  who  were  keep- 
ing watch  over  their  flocks,  and  announced  to  them  His 
birth.     Leaving  their  flocks,  they  hastened  to  Bethlehem 
to  see  the  child,  and  finding  Him,  returned  praising  God. 

The  bearing  of  the  fact  that  the  shepherds  were  in  the 
field  watching  their  flocks,  upon  the  date  of  the  Lord's 
birth,  has  been  already  examined. 

The  residence  of  the  shepherds  is  not  mentioned,  nor  do 
we  know  the  place  where  they  were  keeping  watch.  It  ap- 
pears to  have  been  in  the  vicinity  of  Bethlehem,  and  yet  some 


84  THE   LIFE   OP   OUR   LORD. 

little  distance  removed.  There  is  now,  a  mile  or  more  east 
from  the  convent,  a  plain  in  which  is  a  little  village  called  the 
Village  of  the  Shepherds.  Not  far  from  this  village  is  pointed 
out  the  field  where,  it  is  said,  they  were  feeding  their  flocks, 
and  here  is  shown  a  grotto,  called  the  Grotto  of  the  Shep- 
herds. In  this  field  a  church  was  built  by  the  Empress 
Helena.  In  its  neighborhood  stood  formerly  a  cloister,  but 
now  only  ruins  of  a  church  or  cloister  are  to  be  found.  It  is 
mentioned  by  Bernard,  a.  d.  86 7.1  "  One  mile  from  Beth- 
lehem is  the  monastery  of  the  holy  shepherds  to  whom 
the  angel  appeared  at  our  Lord's  nativity."  Tradition 
makes  the  number  of  Shepherds  three  or  four,  and  gives 
their  names.2 


Jan.— Feb.,  750.     4b.c. 

Upon  the  eighth  day  following  His  birth,  the  Lord  was   Lukb  ii.  21. 
circumcised,  and  the  name  Jesus  given  Him.  Forty  days 
after  the  birth,  Mary  presented   herself  with  the  child  Luke  ii.  22-38. 
at  the  Temple  in  accordance  with  the  law,  and  after  the 
presentation  returned  again  to  Bethlehem. 

The  order  of  events  following  Christ's  birth  to  the  time 
He  went  to  reside  at  Nazareth,  is  much  disputed.  The 
chief  point  of  controversy  is  respecting  the  time  of  the  visit 
of  the  Magi.  If  this  can  be  determined,  the  other  events 
may  be  easily  arranged. 

An  early  and  current  tradition  placed  the  coming  of  the 
Magi  on  the  6th  of  January,  or  on  the  13th  day  after  His 
birth.3  This  day  was  early  celebrated  as  the  Feast  of  the 
Epiphany,  or  the  manifestation  of  Christ,  and  originally  had 
reference  to  His  birth,  to  the  visit  of  the  Magi,  and  to  His 
baptism.  It  is  now  observed  both  in  the  Greek  and  Roman 
Churches  with  reference  to  the  latter  two  events,  of  which 

>  Early  Travels,  29.  *  Hofmann,  117. 

*  See  Thilo,  Codex  Apoc.,  i.  385,  note. 


PRESENTATION   OF  JESUS.  85 

the  adoration  of  the  Magi  is  made  most  prominent.  This  is 
also  the  case  in  the  English  and  American  Episcopal 
Churches.  But  the  tradition  did  not  command  universal 
assent.  Eusebius  and  Epiphanius,  reasoning  from  Matt, 
ii.  16,  put  the  coming  of  the  Magi  two  years  after  His 
birth.  And  others  have  thought  the  6th  January  selected 
for  convenience,  rather  than  as  having  any  direct  chrono- 
logical connection  with  the  event.  The  apocryphal  gospel 
of  the  birth  of  Mary  puts  their  coming  on  the  forty-second 
day,  or  after  the  presentation,  but  some  copies  on  the 
13th.1 

If  we  now  ask  the  grounds  upon  which,  aside  from  this 
tradition,  the  coming  of  the  wise  men  is  placed  so  soon 
after  the  birth,  and  before  the  presentation  in  the  Temple, 
the  more  important  are  these :  first,  that  the  words  rov  & 
Itfa-ov  ytwrflcvTos, li  Now  when  Jesus  was  born,"  (Matt.  ii.  1,) 
imply  that  the  one  event  speedily  followed  the  other,  the 
participle  being  in  the  aorist  and  not  in  the  perfect ;  second, 
that  directly  after  the  presentation  Jesus  went  with  His 
parents  to  Nazareth,  (Luke  ii.  39,)  and  that  therefore  the 
presentation  must  have  been  preceded  by  their  visit ;  third, 
that  at  the  coming  of  the  Magi  Herod  first  heard  of  the  birth 
of  Jesus,  but  if  the  presentation  at  the  Temple  had  pre- 
viously taken  place,  he  must  have  heard  of  it,  as  it  had 
been  made  public  by  Anna,  (Luke  ii.  38.)  But  none  of  these 
reasons  is  decisive.  There  is  nothing,  as  asserted,  in  the  use 
of  ytwrjOarros,  "  now  when  Jesus  was  born,"  that  proves  that 
they  came  so  soon  as  He  was  born,  or  that  an  interval  of  two 
months  may  not  have  elapsed.1  The  opinion  of  many  of 
the  fathers  that  they  found  Him  still  in  the  manger,  or  stall, 
in  spelunca  ilia  qua  nalus  est,  may  be  true,  if  the  manger 
was  in  a  cave  in  the  rear  of  the  house.  (See  Matt.  ii.  11.) 
The  statement  of  Luke,  that  "  when  they  had  performed 

»  Hofmann,  126.  *  See  Gal.  iv.  29,  and  Meyer,  in  loco. 


86  THE   LITE   OF   OUE  LOED. 

all  things  according  to  the  law  of  the  Lord,  they  returned 
into  Galilee,  to  their  own  city  Nazareth,"  has  often  been 
interpreted  as  affirming  that  they  went  directly  from 
the  temple  to  Nazareth  without  any  return  to  Bethle- 
hem.1 But  this  interpretation  is  arbitrary.  It  is  apparent 
that  Luke  does  not  design  to  give  a  full  history  of  Christ's 
infancy.  He  says  nothing  of  the  Magi,  of  the  murder  of  the 
children,  of  the  flight  into  Egypt.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  motive  of  this  omission,  which  Alford,  in  common 
with  many  German  critics,  ascribes  to  ignorance,  nothing  can 
be  inferred  from  it  to  the  impugning  of  Matthew's  accuracy. 
His  statement  respecting  the  return  to  Galilee  is  general, 
and  does  not  imply  any  strict  chronological  connection. 
Elsewhere  in  Luke  like  instances  occur,  as  in  iv.  14,  where 
Jesus  is  said  to  have  "  returned  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit 
into  Galilee,"  whence  it  would  appear  that  this  return  fol- 
lowed immediately  upon  the  temptation  ;  yet  we  know  that 
an  interval  of  several  months  must  have  elapsed.  It  is  the 
fact  that  His  childhood  was  passed  at  Nazareth,  which  Luke 
brings  prominently  forward,  not  the  precise  time  when  He 
went  thither,  which  was  unimportant.  It  is  not  inconsistent 
with  his  language  that  Jesus  should  have  returned  to  Beth- 
lehem from  the  Temple,  an  afternoon  walk  of  two  hours, 
and  have  gone  thence  to  Nazareth  by  way  of  Egypt, 
though  had  we  this  gospel  alone,  we  could  not  infer  this. 
Besides,  it  is  apparent  from  Matthew's  narrative  (ii.  22-3) 
that  Joseph  did  not  design  upon  his  return  from  Egypt  to 
go  to  Galilee,  and  went  thither  only  by  express  divine  di- 
rection. Plainly  he  looked  upon  Bethlehem,  not  Nazareth, 
as  the  proper  home  of  the  child  who  should  be  the  heir 
of  David.2  And  finally  the  fact  that  Anna  "  spoke  of  Him 
to  all  them  that  looked  for  redemption  in  Jerusalem,"  by 
no  means  shows  that  her  words  came  to  the  ears  of  Herod. 

1  So  early,  Chrysostom ;  and  now,  A.  Clarke  and  Meyer, 
a  See  Wieseler,  154. 


PRESENTATION   OP  JESUS.  87 

The  number  of  those  who  shared  the  faith  of  Simeon  and 
Anna  was  doubtless  few,  and  the  birth  of  Jesus  was  not 
an  event  that  they  would  blazon  abroad  before  the  Phari- 
sees and  Herod. 

Those  who  thus  place  the  visit  of  the  Magi  before  the 
purification  of  Mary  and  the  presentation  of  Jesus,  are  by 
no  means  agreed  as  to  the  time  of  the  latter  events.  If  the 
visit  of  the  Magi  was  on  the  thirteenth  day  after  His  birth, 
and  the  murder  of  the  children  and  the  flight  into  Egypt 
took  place  immediately  after,  the  purification  must  have  been 
delayed  till  the  return,  and  so  in  any  event  after  the  legal 
time  on  the  fortieth  day.1  To  avoid  this,  some  suppose 
that,  although  the  suspicions  of  Herod  had  been  aroused  by 
the  inquiries  of  the  Magi,  yet  he  took  no  active  measures 
for  the  destruction  of  the  child,  till  the  rumor  of  what  had 
taken  place  at  the  Temple  at  the  time  of  the  presentation 
(Luke  ii.  27-38)  reaching  his  ears,  stirred  him  up  to  give 
immediate  order  for  the  murder  of  the  children.'  Others 
still,  making  the  departure  to  Nazareth  to  have  immediately 
followed  the  purification,  are  compelled  to  make  Nazareth, 
not  Bethlehem,  the  starting  point  of  the  flight  into  Egypt.' 

The  obvious  difficulties  connected  with  this  traditional 
view  of  the  coming  of  the  wise  men  on  the  thirteenth  day 
after  the  Lord's  birth,  have  led  most  in  modern  times  to  put 
it  after  the  purification  on  the  fortieth  day.  Some,  who  hold 
that  Jesus  went  immediately  after  that  event  to  Nazareth, 
suppose  that  after  a  short  sojourn  there  He  returned  to 
Bethlehem,  and  there  was  found  by  the  wise  men.4  But 
most  who  put  the  purification  upon  the  fortieth  day,  make 
the  visit  of  the  Magi  to  have  shortly  followed,  and  prior  to 
any  departure  to  Nazareth.'  And  this  order  seems  best  to 
harmonize  the  scripture  narratives.     The  language  of  Luke 

»  Friedlieb,  Bucber.  *  Augustine,  Sepp,  Alford.  »  MaldonatL 

4  Epiphanius,  and  now  Jarvis,  and  Patritius. 
•  Robinson,  Tiscbeodorf,  Wieseler,  Licbtenatein. 


88  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

ii.  22,  compared  with  v.  21,  plainly  intimates  that  as  the 
circumcision  took  place  on  the  eighth,  or  legal  day,  so  did 
the  presentation  on  the  fortieth.  Till  this  day,  the  mother 
was  regarded  as  unclean,  and  was  to  abide  at  home,  and  it 
is  therefore  very  improbable  that  the  adoration  of  the  Magi, 
and  especially  the  flight  into  Egypt,  should  have  previously 
taken  place.  Doubtless,  in  case  of  necessity,  all  the  legal 
requisitions  could  have  been  set  aside,  but  this  necessity  is 
not  proved  in  this  case  to  have  existed.  That  the  purifica- 
tion was  after  the  return  from  Egypt,  is  inconsistent  with 
Matthew's  statements,  (ii.  22),  that  after  Joseph  had  heard 
that  Archelaus  was  reigning  in  Judea,  he  was  afraid  to  go 
thither.  I£  then,  he  dare  not  even  enter  the  king's  territory, 
how  much  less  would  he  dare  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  and  enter 
publicly  into  the  temple.  The  conjecture  of  some,1  that 
Archelaus  was  then  absent  at  Rome,  is  wholly  without 
historic  proof. 

That  Matthew  puts  the  flight  into  Egypt  in  immediate 
connection  with  the  departure  of  the  Magi,  (ii.  13,)  is  plain.1 
No  interval  could  have  elapsed  after  their  departure,  for 
it  is  said,  v.  14,  that  he  "took  the  young  child  and  His 
mother  by  night,  and  departed  into  Egypt."  He  went  so 
soon  as  the  angel  appeared  to  him,  apparently  the  same 
night.  We  cannot  then  place  the  history  of  the  purifica- 
tion after  their  departure,  and  before  the  flight  into  Egypt, 
as  is  done  by  Calvin  and  many.  Nor  could  Herod,  after 
his  jealousy  had  been  aroused  by  the  inquiries  of  the  Magi 
after  the  new-born  King  of  the  Jews,  have  waited  quietly 
several  weeks  till  the  events  at  the  purification  awakened 
his  attention  anew.  He  doubtless  acted  here  with  that 
decision  that  characterized  all  his  movements,  and  seeing 

1  So  Hug. 

9  Alford.  Ellicott  says :  "  Probably  on  tbe  same  night  that  the  Magi 
arrived."  From  the  fact  that  they  "  were  warned  of  God  in  a  dream," 
it  may,  however,  be  inferred  that  the  dream  of  Joseph  was  the  night  fol- 
lowing. 


COMING   OP  THE   MAGI.  89 

himself  mocked  by  the  wise  men,  took  instant  measures  for 
the  destruction  of  the  child. 

The  fact  that  Mary  offered  the  offering  of  the  poor, 
(Luke  ii.  24,)  may  be  mentioned  as  incidentally  confirming 
this  view ;  for  if  she  had  received  previously  the  gifts  of  the 
Magi,  particularly  the  gold,  we  may  suppose  that  she  would 
have  used  it  to  provide  a  better  offering.1 

We  thus  trace  a  threefold  adoration  of  Christ:  1st, 
that  of  the  shepherds ;  2d,  that  of  Simeon  and  Anna ;  3d, 
that  of  the  Magi ;  or  a  twofold  adoration  of  the  Jews,  and 
then  the  adoration  of  the  heathen. 


Feb.,  750.    4  b.  c. 

Soon  after  the  presentation,  came  the  wise  men  from  Matt.  ii.  1-12. 
the  East  to  worship  the  new-born  King  of  the  Jews. 
This  visit  excited  the  suspicions  of  Herod,  who  made 
diligent  inquiries  of  them,  but  being  warned  of  God  in  a 
dream  that  they  should  not  return  to  him,  they  departed 
to  their  own  country  another  way. 

The  time  of  the  appearing  of  the  star  which  led  the  Magi 
to  seek  Jesus,  has  been  already  considered  ;  and  in  the  pre- 
ceding note  the  reasons  have  been  given  why  their  coming 
should  be  placed  after  the  purification  on  the  40th  day. 

It  is  not  said  whence  the  Magi  came,  except  ct7ro  avaro- 
Xtuv,  "  from  the  east."  In  this  phrase  Arabia  may  be  in- 
cluded, though  lying  rather  to  the  south  than  east  of  Judea ; 
but  its  more  probable  reference  is  to  the  regions  beyond 
the  Euphrates.  Whether  however  of  these,  Persia,  or 
Chaldea,  or  Parthia,  may  be  meant,  we  have  no  data  to 
determine.  Some  have  preferred  Persia,  because  this  was 
the  home  of  the  Magian  religion  ;  others  Arabia,  because 
the  gifts  given  were  native  to  that  country,  and  it  was 

1  The  whole  subject  of  the  coming  of  the  Magi  is  elaborately  discussed  by 
Patritius,  iii.  826  and  340. 


90  THE  LIFE  OP   OUB  LORD. 

near  to  Judea,  and  also  because  of  the  prediction  of  the 
Psalmist,  (lxxii.  10,)  that  the  kings  of  Seba  and  Sheba 
should  offer  gifts. 

According  to  Rawlinson,1  Magism  was  not  the  primitive 
religion  of  the  Persians,  but  was  received  among  them 
from  the  Scyths.  Its  chief  feature  was  worship  of  the 
elements.  The  Magi,  distinctively  so  called,  were  a  tribe 
of  the  Medes,  to  whom  were  intrusted  all  the  priestly  func- 
tions connected  with  the  practice  of  that  religion,  holding 
a  relation  to  the  other  tribes  similar  to  that  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi  to  the  Jews.  They  were  astrologers,  and  inter- 
preters of  dreams.  The  name,  at  first  one  of  honor,  lost  in 
later  times  its  significance,  and  was  applied  to  all  who  made 
pretensions  to  supernatural  knowledge,  the  itinerant  con- 
jurors, wizards,  jugglers,  often  spoken  of  by  the  Roman 
writers,  and  mentioned  by  Josephus  and  Luke." 

That  these  astrologers  may  have  had  some  knowledge  of 
Balaam's  prophecy  of  a  star  out  of  Jacob,  (Num.  xxiv.  1 7,) 
is  not  impossible.'  Of  the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  from  the 
peculiar  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  the  wise  men  of 
Babylon,  they  could  scarcely  have  been  ignorant.  That  a 
general  expectation  pervaded  the  East  that  a  king  should 
arise  in  Judea  to  rule  the  world,  seems  well  authenticated.* 
At  least  there  were  great  multitudes  of  Jews  in  the  East, 
and  their  Messianic  hopes  could  hardly  fail  to  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  Magi.  According  to  Ellicott,'  it  is  most 
probable  that  they  had  learned  of  "  prophecies  uttered  in 
their  own  country,  dimly  foreshadowing  this  divine  mys- 

1  Herodotus,  i.  Essay  v. 

a  See  Trench,  Star  of  the  Wise  Men.  It  is  singular  that  Lightfoot  should 
insist  that  it  is  used  here,  as  well  as  elsewhere  in  the  Scripture,  in  its  bad 
sense. 

»  See,  however,  Kurtz,  Gesch.  des  Alt.  Bund.,  492. 

4  Suetonius,  Vesp.,  c.  iv. ;  Tacitus,  v.  13.  It  is,  however,  asserted  by 
Giesseler,  that  both  these  historians  copied  Josephus.  Neander  speaks 
doubtingly.  •  72,  note  1. 


COMING   OP  ^HE  MAGI.  91 

tery."  Some  suppose  these  wise  men  to  have  been  them- 
selves Jews,  but  their  question,  "  Where  is  he  that  is  born 
King  of  the  Jews  ?  "  plainly  implies  that  they  were  not  of  that 
people.  Aside,  then,  from  any  immediate  supernatural  reve- 
lation to  them,  we  may  infer  that  they  were  in  a  position 
to  interpret  the  appearing  of  the  star  as  connected  with  the 
fulfilment  of  Jewish  prophecies  respecting  the  Messiah,  and 
thus  could  speak  of  it  as  u  His  star."  Still  there  is  good 
reason  to  believe  that  they  were  taught  of  God  by  special 
revelation  the  meaning  of  the  things  they  saw. 

Of  the  supernatural  character  of  this  star  we  have 
already  spoken.  The  part  it  plays  in  guiding  the  wise  men 
on  their  way,  its  appearing  and  disappearing  and  reappear- 
ing, cannot  well  be  explained  by  a  reference  to  the  conjunc- 
tions of  planets,  or  to  the  ordinary  movements  of  the  stars. 
It  has  well  been  said  by  one  :  Prceter  iUam  stellce  speciem 
qum  corporeum  incitavit  obtutum,fulgentior  veritatU  radius 
eorum  corda  perdocuit.  And  Augustine  calls  the  star  mag- 
nifica  lingua  cadi. 

Many  traditions  have  been  current  in  the  Church  re- 
specting these  Magi.1  They  were  said  to  be  three  in  num- 
ber ;  they  were  kings,  one  of  Arabia,  one  of  Godolia  or 
Saba,  and  one  of  Tharsis  :  their  names  Melchior,  Balthasar, 
Caspar;  they  were  baptized  by  St.  Thomas,  their  bones 
were  gathered  by  St.  Helena  and  buried  at  St.  Sophia  in 
Constantinople,  and  were  finally  removed  to  Cologne,  where 
they  now  lie." 

If  the  Magi  came  from  beyond  the  Euphrates,  they 
probably  came  by  way  of  Damascus  and  thence  to  Jerusa- 
lem. In  returning,  they  may  have  gone  south  of  the  Dead 
Sea  to  Petra,  and  thence  have  crossed  the  Euphrates. 

1  Hofmann,  120. 

•  Hildesheim,  die  Legende  von  den  heiligen  drei  Konigen,  Hertzog  Encvc., 
ii.  503.  For  a  full  discussion  of  all  these  traditions,  see  Spanheim,  Dubia 
Evaugelica,  ii.  271,  and  Patritius,  iii.  818. 


92  THE  LIFE   OP   OUB  LORD. 


Feb.— May,  750.     4  b.  c. 

Immediately  after  their  departure,  Joseph,  warned  by  Matt.  ii.  13-15. 
God  in  a  dream,  takes  Mary  and  Jesus  and  goes  down 
into  Egypt.     Herod,  so  soon  as  he  finds  himself  mocked  Matt.  ii.  16-18. 
by  the  wise  men,  gives  orders  that  all  the  children  in 
Bethlehem  of  two   years  and  under  be  slain.      Joseph 
with  Mary  and  Jesus  remains  in  Egypt  till  he  hears  through  Matt.  ii.  19-23. 
an  angelic  messenger  of  Herod's  death.     He  designs  to  re- 
turn to  Judea,  but  is  directed  by  God  to  go  to  Nazareth,  Luke  ii.  89-40. 
where  the  Lord  remains  during  His  childhood  and  youth. 

The  time  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  was  not  probably  of 
long  duration,  although  extended  by  some  of  the  early 
writers  to  several  years.  In  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  it 
is  stated  at  three  years ;  in  the  History  of  Joseph  at  one 
year  ;  in  Tatian's  Harmony  at  seven  years  ;  by  Epiphanius 
at  two  years.  Athanasius  makes  Jesus  four  years  old  when 
He  came  from  Egypt ;  Baronius  eight  years.  In  modern 
times  those  who  put  the  Lord's  birth  one  or  more  years 
before  Herod's  death,  prolong  correspondingly  the  sojourn 
in  Egypt,  some  one,  some  two,  some  three  years.1  But 
if  his  birth  be  placed  late  in  749,  as  we  place  it,  His  return 
from  Egypt  must  have  been  in  the  early  summer  of  750. 
Lardner,  (i.  358,)  after  Kepler,  has  attempted  to  show  from 
the  expression  of  the  angel,  (Matt.  ii.  20,)  "  they  are  dead 
that  sought  the  young  child's  life,"  that  Antipater  was  in- 
cluded with  Herod,  and  as  he  had  been  at  enmity  with  his 
father  for  near  a  year,  that  the  attempt  upon  His  life,  and 
the  murder  of  the  Innocents  must  have  been  so  long  before 
Herod's  death.    But  this  is  doing  violence  to  the  expression.* 

Joseph  was  to  remain  in  Egypt  till  God  should  send 
him  word,  and  this  word  was  sent  apparently  so  soon  as 
Herod  died.     Considering  how  numerous  were  the  Jews  in 

»  Patritius,  Sepp,  Jarvis.  »  See  Trench,  Star,  107 ;  Meyer  in  loco. 


JESUS  IN  EGYPT.  93 

Egypt,  and  the  constant  communication  between  the  two 
countries,  the  news  of  Herod's  death  must  soon  have 
reached  him  in  the  ordinary  way ;  but  it  was  first  made 
known  to  him  by  the  angel,  and  no  long  interval,  therefore, 
could  have  elapsed.  That  he  made  no  delay  but  hastened 
his  return,  is  implied  in  the  fact  that  he  did  not  know  that 
Archelaus  was  Herod's  successor  till  he  came  to  the  land  of 
Israel.  We  infer,  then,  that  the  return  was  in  the  summer 
of  750,  after  a  sojourn  of  three  or  four  months.1 

Tradition  marks  out  the  route  which  Joseph  took  into 
Egypt  to  have  been  by  way  of  Hebron,  Gaza,  and  the 
desert ;  which,  as  the  most  direct  way,  is  very  likely  the 
true  one.  At  Hebron  is  still  pointed  out  upon  a  hill  the 
spot  where  the  family  rested  at  night,  and  a  similar  one  at 
Gaza.  Probably  near  a  fortnight  was  occupied  in  the 
journey.  The  place  of  their  sojourn  in  Egypt  was  the 
village  Metariyeh,  not  far  from  the  city  of  Heliopolis  on 
the  way  toward  Cairo.  An  old  sycamore  is  still  shown 
as  that  under  which  they  rested  in  their  journey."  It  is 
probable  that  many  Jews  dwelt  at  this  time  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Heliopolis,  which  may  explain  the  choice  of  a 
village  in  its  vicinity  as  their  place  of  refuge.  Another 
tradition,  however,  makes  them  to  have  left  Metariyeh,  and 
to  have  dwelt  at  Memphis."  The  temple  built  by  Onias 
about  150  B.c.  at  Leontopolis  still  continued  to  be  a  much 
frequented  place  of  worship  to  the  Egyptian  Jews,  of 
whom  Lightfoot  says,  "there  was  an  infinite  number  at 
this  time." 


1  According  to  Greswell,  7  months ;  to  Lichtenstein,  4-5  weeks ;  to  Wiese- 
ler  and  Ellicott,  2-8  weeks.  Patritius,  iii.  403,  argues  that  the  return  was 
during  the  little  interval  when  Archelaus  ruled  a»  king,  or  from  the  death  of 
his  father  to  his  departure  to  Rome,  whither  he  went  to  obtain  the  confirma- 
tion of  Herod's  will.  This  would  make  it  to  have  been  early  in  April,  750. 
It  may,  however,  be  doubted  whether  the  expression  of  Matthew,  ii.  22,  that 
"Archelaus  did  reign,"  is  not  pressed  too  far. 

«  Kitto,  Life  of  Christ,  189.  »  Thilo,  Codex  Apoc,  98 


94  THE  LIFE   OF    OUE   LORD. 

From  the  nearness  of  Bethlehem  to  Jerusalem,  Herod 
doubtless  learned  very  early  after  the  departure  of  the 
Magi  that  they  had  deceived  him,  and  that  through  them 
he  could  not  discover  the  new-born  child.  But  as  he  had 
already  diligently  inquired  of  them  what  time  the  star  ap- 
peared, he  thought  to  accomplish  his  purpose  by  ordering 
that  all  the  male  children  from  two  years  old  and  under,  in 
Bethlehem  and  its  environs,  should  be  put  to  death.  The 
truth  of  the  narrative  has  been  often  questioned,  and  on 
various  grounds.  The  only  important  objection,  however, 
is  that  springing  from  the  silence  of  Josephus,  who,  it  is 
said,  must  have  mentioned  an  event  so  peculiar  and  cruel.1 
The  common  answer  to  this,  that  among  the  many  insane 
and  fiendish  acts  of  cruelty  that  marked  the  last  days  of 
Herod,  this  might  be  easily  overlooked,  is  amply  sufficient.' 
The  expression,  M  from  two  years  old  and  under,"  is  am- 
biguous. According  to  Campbell,  "  Only  those  beginning 
the  second  year  are  included."  Greswell  also  limits  it  to 
the  age  of  thirteen  months.  If  it  be  thus  confined,  the 
number  of  the  children  murdered  is  much  diminished. 
But  under  any  circumstances  it  could  not  have  been  large. 
Sepp,  supposing  the  whole  number  of  inhabitants  of  Beth- 
lehem and  its  coasts  to  be  5,000,  would  make  the  male 
children  of  this  age  about  ninety  ;  but  this  is  a  large  esti- 
mate. Townsend,  making  the  inhabitants  to  be  2,000, 
makes  50  ohildren  to  have  been  slain.  Some  would  reduce 
the  number  to  ten  or  fifteen.'  Voltaire,  after  an  old  Greek 
tradition,  would  make  it  14,000.  In  peaceful  times,  such 
an  act  as  this,  even  if  executed  as  this  probably  was,  in 
secrecy,  would  have  excited  general  indignation  when  it 
became  known ;  but  now  the  Jewish  people  had  so  long 
"  supped  with  horrors,"  and  were  so  engrossed  in  the  many 
perils  that  threatened  their  national  existence,  that  this 

1  Meyer  in  loco.  »  Winer,  i.  483.  »  Winer,  i.  483 ;  Morrison. 


MURDER  OF   Till:    INNOCENTS.  95 

passed  by  comparatively  unnoticed.  Such  a  deed — from  a 
man,  of  whom  Joseph  us  says,  that  "  he  was  brutish  and  a 
stranger  to  all  humanity,"  who  had  murdered  his  wife  and 
his  own  children,  and  who  wished  in  his  dying  rage  to  de- 
stroy all  the  chief  men  of  his  kingdom,  that  there  might  be 
a  general  mourning  at  his  funeral — could  have  awakened  no 
surprise.  It  was  wholly  in  keeping  with  his  reckless  and 
savage  character ;  but  one,  and  by  no  means  the  greatest 
of  his  crimes.  It  is  therefore  possible  that  it  may  never 
have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Jewish  historian,  writing 
so  many  years  after  the  event. 

If,  however,  Josephus  was  aware  of  this  atrocity,  it  by 
no  means  follows  that  he  would  have  mentioned  it.  With 
the  reasons  for  his  silence  we  are  not  particularly  con- 
cerned. It  may  be,  as  some  say,1  that  he  purposely  avoided 
every  thing  that  drew  attention  to  the  Messianic  hopes  of 
his  people;  or,  as  others,*  that  "he  could  not  mention  it 
without  giving  the  Christian  cause  a  great  advantage." 
But  whatever  his  motives,  his  silence  cannot  invalidate  the 
statement  of  Matthew,  except  with  those  who  will  not 
credit  an  Evangelist  unless  corroborated  by  some  Jewish 
or  heathen  author. 

There  are  some*  who  think  that  the  sedition  of  Judas 
and  Matthias*  occurred  at  this  very  time,  and  was  con- 
nected with  the  visit  of  the  Magi.  The  inquiries  of  these 
strangers  for  the  King  of  the  Jews,  aroused  into  immediate 
activity  the  fiery  zealots,  and  a  report  of  the  king's 
death  finding  credence,  they  attacked  at  noon  day  the 
golden  eagle  he  had  placed  over  the  temple  gate.  About 
40  of  them  being  arrested  were  burned  with  fire.  Ex- 
asperated at  this  bold  sedition,  and  aware  of  the  cause,  the 
king  gave  orders  for  the  slaughter  of  the  children  at  Beth- 
lehem.    Of  these  two  acts  of  this  tragedy,  Matthew  relates 

»  Lichten stein,  97.  *  Lardner,  i.  851.  *  So  Lardner,  i.  848. 

*  Josephus,  Antiq.  16.  6.  8  and  4. 


96  THE  LIFE  OF   OUB  LORD. 

only  that  with  which  he  was  concerned,  that  which  took 
place  at  Bethlehem ;  and  Josephus  that  which  concerned 
the  general  history  of  affairs.  The  silence  of  the  one  is  no 
disproof  of  the  other. 

The  objection  of  Hase  and  Meyer,  that  this  murder  of 
the  children  was  both  superfluous  and  unwise,  may  be  very 
true,  but  does  not  affect  the  historic  truth  of  the  event. 
The  silence  of  heathen  historians  respecting  it  is  wholly 
unimportant.  Judea  did  not  hold  so  high  a  place  in  their 
estimation  that  they  should  trouble  themselves  about  its 
internal  history,  so  little  intelligible  to  a  stranger.  Herod's 
name  is  occasionally  mentioned  by  them  in  connection  with 
Roman  matters,  and  there  is  in  one  a  brief  allusion  to  the 
trial  and  death  of  bis  sons,  but  nothing  more.  The  well- 
known  jest  of  Augustus,  preserved  by  Macrobius,1  might 
be  cited  if  it  could  be  shown  that  he  had  borrowed  nothing 
from  Christian  sources.  He  says  :  "  When  Augustus  had 
heard  that  among  the  children  under  two  years  old,  intra 
bimatum,  which  Herod  had  commanded  to  be  slain  in 
Syria,  his  own  son  had  been  killed,  he  said  it  is  better  to 
be  Herod's  swine  than  his  son."  The  expression,  "two 
years  old,"  points  too  directly  to  Matthew  to  allow  us  to 
suppose  that  it  had  an  independent  origin,  although  the 
words  of  Augustus  may  be  literally  given.  Most  agree 
that  it  is  of  no  historical  value.8 

It  would  be  strange  indeed  that  while  oriental  history  is 
full  of  such  deeds  of  cruelty,  which  are  believed  upon  the 
authority  of  a  single  writer,  the  statement  of  the  Evangelist 
should  be  disbelieved,  though  confirmed  by  all  that  we 
know  of  the  character  of  the  chief  actor,  and  of  the  history 
of  the  times.  A  like  rule  applied  to  general  history  would 
leave  not  a  few  of  its  pages  empty. 

>  Sat,  ii.  2. 

a  So  Lardner,  Meyer,  Trench,  Alford.  See,  however.  Mill,  294;  Ellicott, 
78,  note  2. 


KETUBN  FBOM  EGYPT.  97 

When  directed  to  go  into  Egypt,  Joseph  was  not  told 
to  what  place  he  should  return,  (Matt.  ii.  13,)  nor  after- 
ward, when  directed  to  return,  was  the  place  designated, 
(v.  20.)  It  is  plain,  however,  that  he  did  not  design  to  re- 
turn to  Nazareth.  He  evidently  regarded  Bethlehem,  the 
city  of  David,  the  proper  place  in  which  to  rear  the  son  of 
David.  The  province  of  Galilee  was  politically  of  little 
weight,  and  ecclesiastically  it  was  despised ;  and  Nazareth 
was  one  of  its  most  inconsiderable  villages,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  bad  name  it  seems  to  have  borne.  He  naturally 
supposed  that  He  who  was  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  should 
dwell  in  the  land  of  Judah,  the  most  religious,  most  sacred 
part  of  Palestine ;  and,  as  the  promised  Messiah,  should  be 
brought  as  near  as  possible  to  the  theocratic  centre,  where 
He  might  have  frequent  intercourse  with  the  priests  and 
rabbins,  and  be  educated  under  the  very  shadow  of  the 
temple.  Only  through  a  special  command  of  God,  was  he 
led  to  return  with  Jesus  to  Galilee ;  and  that  he  made  his 
abode  in  the  obscure  vale  of  Nazareth,  can  only  be  explain- 
ed by  the  feet,  of  which  Matthew  is  wholly  silent,  that  this 
had  been  his  earlier  residence  as  related  by  Luke. 

How  diverse  the  opinions  of  harmonists  have  been,  in 
regard  to  the  order  of  events  of  the  Lord's  infancy,  will 
appear  by  a  comparison  of  their  several  arrangements.  We 
give  such  as  best  present  this  diversity:  Epiphanifs. 
Birth.  Circumcision  on  8th  day.  Presentation  on  40th. 
Departure  to  Nazareth  and  sojourn  there  two  years.  Re- 
turn to  Bethlehem.  Coming  of  Magi.  Flight  to  Egypt 
and  sojourn  there  three  years.  Return  to  Galilee.  Light- 
foot.  Birth.  Circumcision  on  8th  day.  Presentation,  40th 
day.  Return  to  Bethlehem  and  sojourn  there  till  two  years 
of  age.  Coming  of  Magi.  Flight  into  Egypt  and  sojourn 
there  three  or  four  months.  Return  to  Galilee.  Chem- 
Nrnus.  Birth.  Circumcision  on  8th  day.  Coming  of  Magi 
just  before  the  Presentation.  Presentation  on  40th  day. 
5 


98  THE   LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

Flight  into  Egypt  and  sojourn  there  four  years.  Return  to 
Galilee.  Sepp.  Birth.  Circumcision  on  8th  day.  Coming 
of  Magi,  13th  day.  Presentation,  40th  day.  Flight  into 
Egypt  and  sojourn  there  two  years.  Return  to  Galilee. 
Friedlieb.  Birth.  Circumcision  on  8th  day.  Coming 
of  Magi  on  13th.  Flight  into  Egypt  and  sojourn  there 
three  or  four  months.  Return  to  Judea.  Presentation. 
Departure  to  Nazareth.  Wieseler.  Birth.  Circumcision 
on  8th  day.  Presentation  on  40th.  Coming  of  Magi. 
Flight  into  Egypt  and  sojourn  there  two  or  three  weeks. 
Return  to  Galilee. 

In  the  village  of  Nazareth  the  Lord  spent  the  larger 
part  of  his  earthly  life,  and  it  therefore  deserves  our  spe- 
cial notice.  His  residence  here  being  brought  by  Matthew 
into  direct  connection  with  the  Old  Testament  prophecy, 
the  etymology  of  the  name  has  been  much  discussed.1  By 
many  it  is  derived  from  Netser,  the  Hebrew  for  sprout,  or 
twig,  either  because  of  so  many  thickets  upon  the  adjoining 
hills,  or  because  the  village  itself  was  small  and  feeble,  like 
a  tender  twig.2  So  Jesus  is  called  (Isaiah  xi.  1)  a  Branch. 
Others  derive  it  from  Notser,  that  which  guards  or  keeps ; 
hence  Nazareth,  the  protecting  city.'  Others  still  derive 
it  from  Nezer,  to  separate.4 .  Jerome  interpreted  it  as 
meaning  a  flower.  Ibimus  ad  Nazareth,  etjuxta  interpre- 
tationem  nominis  ejus,  florem  videbimus  Galike ;  refer- 
ring, as  would  appear  from  his  language  elsewhere,  to 
Jesus  as  the  Branch,  or  Flower  from  the  roots  of  Jesse.  It 
is  noticeable  that  travellers  speak  of  the  great  quantity  of 
flowers  now  seen  there.6  The  present  name  in  Arabic  is  En 
Nasirah. 

Nazareth  lies  in  a  small  valley  a  little  north  of  the  great 

1  See  Meyer  in  loco.  »  Winer,  ii.  142 ;  Hengst,  Christology,  ii.  109. 

8  See  Riggenbach,  Stud.  u.  Krit,  1855. 

4  Lightfoot  and  Bengel  in  loco. 

•  Stanley,  359.    The  subject  is  discussed  by  Mill,  835. 


NAZARETH.  99 

plain  of  Esdraelon,  from  which  it  is  reached  by  very  rocky 
and  precipitous  paths.  Its  elevation  above  the  plain  is 
estimated  to  be  from  300  to  350  feet.  Bonar(398)  speaks 
of  the  main  road  "  as  little  better  than  a  succession  of  rocky 
slopes  or  ledges,  rugged  with  holes  and  stones.  Yet  this 
was  the  old  road  to  Nazareth.  There  could  be  no  other 
from  this  side,  so  that  one  travelling  from  the  south  must 
have  taken  it."  The  valley  runs  northeast  and  southwest, 
and  is  about  a  mile  long  and  a  quarter  of  a  mile  broad. 
Around  it  rise  many  small  hills  of  no  great  height,  the 
highest  being  on  the  west  or  southwest  They  are  of 
limestone,  and  give  to  the  scenery  a  grayish  tint,  and  are 
covered  thickly  with  shrubs  and  trees.  "  The  white  rocks 
all  around  Nazareth  give  it  a  peculiar  aspect.  It  appears 
dry  and  tame,  and  this  effect  is  increased  by  the  trees  being 
powdered  over  with  dust  during  the  summer  season.  The 
heat  was  very  great,  and  the  gleam  from  the  rocks  painful 
to  the  eye."  *  "  The  upper  ridges  of  the  hills  were,  as  is 
usual  in  this  worn-out  land,  gray  and  bare,  but  the  lower 
slopes  and  dells  and  hollows  were  green,  sprinkled  not 
scantily  with  the  olive,  the  fig,  the  prickly  pear,  and  the 
karub ;  while  in  the  gardens  the  usual  oriental  fruit  trees 
showed  themselves." ' 

The  village  itself  lies  on  the  western  side  of  the  valley 
upon  the  side  of  the  hill.  The  houses  are  in  general  of 
stone,  and  more  substantially  built  than  most  of  the  towns 
of  the  region,  and  from  their  whiteness  it  has  been  called 
the  white  city  ; '  the  streets  or  lanes  are,  however,  narrow 
and  filthy.  Porter  (ii.  359)  speaks  of  it  "  as  built  on  the  side 
of  the  highest  hill ;  on  the  north  the  side  of  the  hill  is  steep, 
and  where  it  joins  the  plain  is  seamed  by  three  or  four  ra-. 
vines,  and  on  the  lower  declivities  of  the  ridges  between  them 
stands  the  village  of  Nazareth.     This  therefore  is  '  the  hill 

1  Mission  of  Inquiry,  806.  •  Bonar.  *  See  Schwartz,  178. 


100  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD. 

whereon  the  city  was  built,'  (Luke  iv.  29.)  The  houses  in 
some  places  seem  to  cling  to  the  sides  of  the  precipices,  in 
others  they  nestle  in  glens,  and  in  others  again  they  stand 
boldly  out  overlooking  the  valley."  The  present  number 
of  inhabitants  is  variously  estimated :  by  Robinson  at  3,000, 
by  Porter  at  4,000,  by  Lynch,  5,000,  by  others  much 
less.  • 

Nazareth  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  nor 
by  Josephus,  from  which  we  may  conclude  that  it  was  a 
place  of  no  importance.  Although  so  intimately  connected 
with  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  therefore  so  prominent  in  the 
Gospels,  it  is  not  mentioned  by  any  Christian  writer  prior 
to  Eusebius  in  the  4th  century,  nor  does  it  seem  to  have 
been  visited  by  pilgrims  till  the  sixth.1  After  this  time  it 
became  one  of  the  most  famous  among  the  holy  places.  In 
the  7th  century  two  churches  are  mentioned,  one  on  the 
site  of  Joseph's  house,  and  the  other  on  the  site  of  the 
house  where  Gabriel  appeared  to  Mary.2  During  the  Cru- 
sades it  was  made  the  seat  of  a  bishopric.  It  was  destroyed 
about  a.  d.  1200,  by  the  Saracens,  and  for  300  or  400  years 
seems  to  have  been  inhabited  chiefly  by  Mohammedans, 
and  very  little  visited  by  pilgrims."  One  of  the  churches 
was  rebuilt  in  1620  by  the  Franciscans,  who  added  to  it  a 
cloister.  Nazareth  was  for  some  time,  and  is  now,  the 
seat  of  a  Greek  titular  bishop. 

All  travellers  agree  in  praising  the  extent  and  beauty 
of  the  prospect  from  the  top  of  the  hill  northwest  of 
Nazareth.  It  is  surmounted  by  the  tomb  of  a  Mohamme- 
dan saint,  and  is  about  400  or  500  feet  above  the  valley.4 
To  the  north  is  seen  the  wide  plain  of  el  Buttauf,  running 
from  east  to  west,  having  Cana  of  Galilee  upon  its  northern, 

1  Robinson,  ii.  841.  *  Arculf,  Early  Travels,  9. 

3  Early  Travels,  46  and  298. 

*  So  Robinson,  ii.  333,  note.    Schubert  makes  it  700  or  800  feet  above 
Nazareth. 


NAZARETH.  101 

and  Sepphoris  upon  its  southern  border,  and  beyond  it  rise 
in  parallel  ridges  the  hills,  one  behind  another,  to  the  heights 
of  Safed.  To  the  northeast  Hermon  is  seen,  and  eastward 
the  ranges  of  Bashan  beyond  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  whilst 
Tabor  lies  between  it  and  the  sea.  To  the  southeast 
stretch  Little  Hermon  and  Gilboa  in  parallel  lines.  On  the 
south  lies  the  great  plain  of  Esdraelon,  bounded  southward 
by  the  hills  of  Samaria  and  the  long  line  of  Carmel.  Over 
the  broken  ridges  that  join  Carmel  to  Samaria,  is  seen  the 
Mediterranean  far  to  the  southwest,  and  the  eye  following 
the  summits  westward  reaches  the  high  promontory  where 
Carmel  ends  upon  the  shore ;  from  this  point  is  seen  the 
unbroken  expanse  of  water  many  miles  to  the  north.  This 
view  is  said  by  Porter  (ii.  263)  to  be  the  richest,  and  per- 
haps also  the  most  extensive,  which  one  gets  in  all  Pales- 
tine, and  to  surpass  that  from  Tabor.1 

That  Nazareth,  from  some  cause,  had  at  the  time  when 
the  Lord  resided  in  it  an  evil  name,  appears  plainly  from 
John  L  46.*  The  objection  of  Nathanael  was  not  merely 
that  it  was  in  Galilee,  and  that  the  Messiah  could  not  come 
out  of  Galilee,  (John  vii.  41,)  but  he  refers  specially  to 
Nazareth.  Nor  was  it  that  it  was  a  little  village,  for  so 
was  Bethlehem.  The  obvious  import  is,  that  Nazareth 
was  in  ill-repute  throughout  the  province,  and  of  this  Na- 
thanael, who  was  from  Cana  but  a  little  way  distant,  was 
well  aware.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  revengeful  and  cruel 
treatment  of  the  Lord  when  he  first  preached  to  the  in- 
habitants, (Luke  iv.  28,  29.) 


April  8,  761.    a.  d.  8. 

From  Nazareth,  at  the  age  of  twelve,  the  Lord  goes  up  Luke  ii.  41-52. 
for  the  first  time  to  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  Passover.   After 
the  expiration  of  the  feast  He  remained  behind  to  converse 

1  See  Robinson,  ii.  336 ;  Stanley,  857.  9  See  Kitto,  Life  of  Christ,  27. 


'102  THE  LIFE    OP   OUB  LORD. 

with  the  doctors,  and  was  found  in  the  temple  three  days  Luke  ii.  41-52. 
after  by  His  parents.     Returning  to  Nazareth,  He  dwelt 
there  in  retirement  till  the  time  came  that  He  should  enter 
upon  His  public  work. 

Supposing  the  Lord  to  have  been  born  in  seven  hundred 
and  forty-nine,  the  year  when  He  went  up  with  His  parents 
to  the  Passover  was  seven  hundred  and  sixty-one,  and  the 
feast  began  on  the  8th  ApriL  His  presence  at  the  Passover 
at  the  age  of  twelve,  was  in  accordance  with  Jewish  custom. 
At  that  age  the  Jewish  boys  began  to  be  instructed  in  the 
law,  to  be  subject  to  the  fasts,  and  to  attend  regularly  the 
feasts,  and  were  called  the  sons  of  the  Law.1  This,  however, 
is  called  in  question  by  Greswell,  (i.  396,)  who  asserts  that 
boys  did  not  become  subject  to  ordinances,  till  they  had 
reached  the  age  of  fourteen  years,  and  that  the  purpose 
for  which  Jesus  was  now  taken  up  was  not  to  celebrate  the 
Passover,  but  to  be  "  made  a  disciple  of  the  Law,  and  to 
undergo  a  ceremony,  something  like  to  our  confirmation." 
He  sees  in  this  the  explanation  of  the  Lord's  presence  in  the 
midst  of  the  doctors.  It  is  not  probable  that  up  to  this  time 
Jesus  had  accompanied  His  parents  to  Jerusalem  to  any  of 
the  festivals.  Of  all  that  passed  between  Him  and  the  Rab- 
bis, a  full  account  may  be  found  in  the  Apocryphal  Gospel 
of  the  Infancy.2  It  needs  no  proof  that  on  this  occasion 
He  was  not  taking  upon  Himself  the  part  of  a  teacher,  nor 
asking  questions  for  disputation,  but  was  seeking  to  learn 
the  truth  from  those  who  were  appointed  of  God  to  be  the 
teachers  of  the  Law.  Where  He  was  sitting  with  the  doc- 
tors is  uncertain.  Lightfoot,  (in  loco,)  after  discussing  the 
point,  says :  "  There  is  nothing  absurd  in  it  if  we  should  sup- 
pose Christ  gotten  into  the  very  Sanhedrim  itself.  Thither 
Joseph  and  His  mother  might  come,  and  seeking  Him, 
might  find  Him  on  the  benches  of  the  fathers  of  the  coun- 

1  Meyer  in  loco ;  Sepp,  ii.  172.  »  See  Hofmann,  259. 


JESUS   WITH  THE   DOCTORS.  103 

cil  for  that  time,  they  having  found  Him  so  capable  both 
to  propound  questions  and  answer  them." 

The  three  days  that  elapsed  before  His  parents  found 
Jesus,  may  be  thus  computed :  the  first,  that  of  their  departure 
from  Jerusalem  ;  second,  the  day  of  their  return  ;  third,  the 
day  when  He  was  found :  or,  if  we  exclude  the  day  of  de- 
parture— first,  the  day  of  their  return ;  second,  the  day  of 
search  in  Jerusalem ;  third,  the  day  when  He  was  found. 
Some,  with  much  less  probability,  count  three  days  from  the 
day  of  their  return.  That  He  might  very  easily  be  separated 
from  them  without  any  culpable  carelessness  on  their  part, 
appears  from  the  great  multitudes  that  were  present,  and  the 
confusion  that  would  necessarily  prevail  at  such  a  time. 
Tradition  makes  Beer  or  El  Bireh  to  have  been  the  place 
where  His  parents  spent  the  first  night,  and  where  they 
missed  their  son.  "  The  place  where  Christ  was  first  missed 
by  His  parents  is  commonly  shown  at  this  day  to  travel- 
lers, by  the  name  of  Beer,  but  ten  miles  from  the  city." l 
As  is  well  known,  the  first  day's  journey  of  a  company  of 
eastern  travellers  is  always  short.  "  On  that  day  it  is  not 
customary  to  go  more  than  six  or  eight  miles,  and  the  tents 
are  pitched  for  the  first  night's  encampment,  almost  within 
sight  of  the  place  from  which  the  journey  commences." ' 
That,  leaving  Jerusalem  in  the  afternoon  with  the  crowd  of 
Galilean  pilgrims,  Mary  and  Joseph  should  have  lost  sight 
of  Jesus  for  three  or  four  hours,  and  yet  not  have  felt  any 
alarm,  supposing  Him  to  have  been  somewhere  in  the  com- 
pany, presents  no  difficulty.8 

How  the  eighteen  years  of  the  Lord's  life  passed  at 
Nazareth  were  spent,  we  have  no  means  of  determining. 
The  Evangelists  have  maintained  upon  this  point  entire 
silence.     It  is  most  probable  that  He  was  taught  His  father 

»  Lightfoot.  *  Hackett,  Scrip.  III.,  12. 

•  As  to  the  more  distinguished  Rabbis  whom  the  Lord  may  have  met  at 
this  time,  see  Sepp,  ii.  178. 


104  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB  LORD. 

Joseph's  trade,  according  to  the  settled  custom  of  the  Jews 
to  bring  up  their  sons  to  some  trade  or  art.1  This  is  very 
plainly  taught  in  the  question  of  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth, 
"  Is  not  this  the  carpenter  ?  "  which,  as  Alford  remarks, 
"  signifies  that  the  Lord  had  actually  worked  at  the  trade 
of  His  reputed  father."  Justin  Martyr  (100-150  a.  d.) 
says  that  "  Christ  being  regarded  as  a  worker  in  wood,  did 
make,  while  among  men,  ploughs  and  yokes,  thus  setting 
before  them  symbols  of  righteousness,  and  teaching  an 
active  life."  *  That  this  was  His  occupation  seems  to  have 
been  generally  believed  by  the  early  fathers.  Some  in 
later  times,  thinking  bodily  labor  derogatory  to  Him,  made 
this  time  of  retirement  at  Nazareth  to  have  been  spent  in 
contemplation  and  prayer.  The  traditions  that  He  made  a 
journey  to  Persia  to  visit  the  Magi,  or  to  Egypt  to  visit 
her  sages,  need  no  notice." 

It  is  an  interesting  inquiry,  and  one  that  may  properly 
be  considered  here,  Who  constituted  the  household  of  Joseph 
and  Mary  at  Nazareth  ?  Was  Jesus  the  only  child  in  the 
family  circle,  or  were  there  other  children  ?  and  if  there 
were  others,  in  what  relation  did  they  stand  to  Him? 
Reference  is  several  times  made  by  the  Evangelists  to  His 
brothers  and  sisters.  (Matt.  xii.  46-50  ;  xiii.  55,  56  ;  Mark 
iii.  31 ;  vi.  3  ;  Luke  viii.  19 ;  John  ii.  12  ;  vii.  3  ;  Acts  i.  14.) 
St.  Paul  refers  to  "  the  brethren  of  the  Lord,"  (1  Cor.  ix.  5 ;) 
and  calls  James  "  the  Lord's  brother,"  (Gal.  i.  19.)  Who  are 
these  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  is  confessedly  one  of 
the  most  difficult  that  meets  us  in  the  whole  range  of  our 
inquiries.  It  has  been  in  dispute  from  very  early  times, 
and  opinions  are  as  much  at  variance  now  as  ever.  All  that 
can  be  attempted  here  is  to  set  the  matter  in  its  most  im- 
portant bearings  fairly  before  the  reader. 

Let  us  first  sum  up  what  we  know  from  the  New  Testa- 

1  See  Lightfoot  on  Mark  vi.  3.  *  See  contra  Mosheim,  Com.,  i.  85. 

8  See  Hofmann,  264. 


THE  LORD'S  BRETHREN.  105 

ment  of  these  brothers  and  sisters  of  the  Lord.  The  names 
of  the  former  are  given  by  Matthew  xiii.  55,  and  by  Mark 
vi.  3,  as  James,  Joses,  Simon,  and  Judas.1  Both  Evangelists 
mention  His  sisters,  but  neither  their  number  nor  names  are 
given.  From  the  language  of  the  Nazarenes,  (Matt.  xiii. 
56,)  "  His  sisters,  are  they  not  all  with  us  ? "  there  must 
have  been  at  least  two,  who  were  probably  married  and 
resident  at  Nazareth.  His  brethren  are  spoken  of  as  going 
with  him  to  Capernaum,  (John  ii.  12,)  and  afterward  ap- 
pear in  company  with  His  mother  again  in  the  same  city, 
(Matt.  xii.  46 ;  see  also  John  vii.  3-10.) 

In  all  these  references  to  the  Lord's  brethren,  several 
things  are  noticeable :  first,  that  they  are  always  called 
brothers  and  sisters,  aScAdxn  and  a&Adxu,  not  cousins  or 
kinsmen,  avc^ioi  or  o-vyyevcis ;  second,  that  they  are  called 
always  His  brothers  and  His  sisters,  net  sons  or  daughters 
of  Mary ;  third,  that  they  always  appear  in  connection  with 
Mary,  as  if  her  children  and  under  her  direction. 

We  may  thus  classify  the  various  theories  respecting 
them:  First,  that  which  makes  them  to  have  been  the 
children  of  Joseph  by  a  former  marriage,  or  by  adoption, 
and  so  Christ's  brothers  and  sisters.  Second,  that  which 
makes  them  to  have  been  children  of  a  sister  of  His  mother, 
and  so  His  cousins-german.  Some  make  them  His  cousins 
by  His  father's  as  well  as  His  mother's  side.  Third,  that 
which  makes  them  to  have  been  His  own  brothers  and 
sisters,  the  children  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  Each  of  these 
theories  will  be  briefly  examined. 

First,  that  they  were  children  of  Joseph  by  a  former 
marriage  or  by  adoption.  That  Joseph  at  the  time  of  his 
marriage  to  Mary  was  a  widower,  is  often  and  expressly 
said  in  the  Apocryphal  Gospels.    In  the  u  History  of  Jo- 

1  Teschendorf  has  in  Matthew  Joseph  for  Joses ;  in  Mark  \wr\Toi :  so 
Alford.  As  to  the  bearing  of  this  diversity  of  readings,  see  Wieseler,  Stud.  u. 
Krit,  1842,  p.  75. 

5* 


106  THE  LIFE  OP   OUE  LORD. 

seph,"  ch.  ii.,  the  names  of  his  children  by  his  first  wife  are 
given  :  Judas,  Justus,  Jacobus,  and  Simon ;  Assia  and 
Lydia.  In  the  "  Gospel  of  James,"  ch.  ix.,  Joseph  says,  "  I 
am  an  old  man,  and  I  have  sons."  According  to  Hofmann,1 
it  is  generally  agreed  that  he  had  but  four  sons,  but  their 
names  are  variously  given.  There  is  no  general  agreement 
as  to  the  names,  or  number  of  the  daughters."  It  is  said 
by  Thiersch*  that  this  was  the  only  tradition  respecting  the 
parentage  of  these  brothers  and  sisters  of  the  Lord  that 
existed  during  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  was  the 
ruling  one  till  the  time  of  Jerome.  This  father,  writing 
against  Helvidius,  first  gave  currency  to  the  view  that  they 
were  cousins  of  the  Lord,  and  hence  is  called  by  Baronius 
fortissimus  adstipulator,  vel  potius  aicctor  of  this  the- 
ory.4 The  object  of  Jerome,  in  denying  that  they  were 
the  children  of  Joseph,  was  to  exalt  celibacy.  Not  only 
had  Mary  continued  all  her  married  life  a  virgin,  but  Joseph 
also ;  and  hence  his  former  marriage  must  be  denied,  and 
another  parentage  given  his  reputed  children.  In  the  Latin 
Church  the  view  of  Jerome,  supported  by  Augustine,  be- 
came, and  continues  to  be,  the  ruling  one;  but  in  the 
Greek  Church,  the  old  tradition  still  continues  current.5 

This  theory,  that  makes  them  the  children  of  Joseph  by 
a  former  marriage,  has,  in  itself,  nothing  intrinsically  im- 
probable ;  though  regarded  by  some  as  a  mere  fiction, 
devised  to  save  Mary's  virginity."  If  Joseph  had  had  chil- 
dren by  an  earlier  wife,  these  would  properly  be  the  Lord's 
brothers  and  sisters,  and  their  presence  with  His  mother 
would  be  readily  explained.  That  they  are  not  called  Jo- 
seph's children,  might  be  accounted  for  by  his  death  before 
they  appear  in  the  gospel  narrative.  But  there  are  still 
very  weighty  objections.     If  children  by  a  former  marriage, 

*  Leben  Jesu,  4.  »  See  Thilo,  Codex  Apoc.,  i.  363. 

»  Versuch.,  361  and  431.  *  See  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  art.  iii. 

»  See  Schaff,  die  Bruder  dea  Herrn.,  8*;  Hofmann,  Leben  Jeau,  4. 

•  So  Stier,  Greawell. 


THE  lord's  brethren.  107 

they  must  have  been  born  before  Jesus,  and  some  of 
them  been  much  older,  and  this  seems  inconsistent  with 
their  relations  to  him,  and  their  continued  attendance  upon 
Mary.  If  also  He  was  not  the  eldest,  but  youngest  son  of 
Joseph,  how  could  He  be  called  the  legal  heir  to  the  throne  ? 
Nor  can  it  be  shown  that  the  tradition,  however  ancient, 
was  ever  universally  received. 

There  is  a  modification  of  this  view,  which  makes  the 
Lord's  brethren  to  have  been  the  adopted  children  of 
Joseph.  Joseph  had  a  brother,  Clopas,  or  Alpheus,1  who 
married  a  certain  Mary,  not  the  sister  of  the  Lord's  mother, 
and  had  by  her  four  sons  and  some  daughters.  Clopas 
dying,  Joseph  took  these  children  to  his  own  house,  and 
became  their  father.  Thus  by  birth  they  were  the  legal 
cousins  of  Jesus,  children  of  His  father's  brother,  and  now 
become  His  brothers  and  sisters  by  their  adoption.  Mary, 
their  mother,  came  with  them,  and  was  an  inmate  of  Joseph's 
house,  and  a  member  of  the  family.  Thus  her  presence  at 
the  cross  and  sepulchre  finds  a  ready  explanation,  (Matt, 
xxvii.  56  and  61.)  As  the  adopted  sons  of  Joseph  they  could 
well  be  called  by  the  Evangelists  the  Lord's  brethren. 
Still,  being  bound  by  no  ties  of  blood  to  Mary,  His  mother, 
and  having  a  mother  of  their  own,  He  could  upon  the  cross 
commend  her  to  the  care  of  John,  who  was  her  nephew, 
the  son  of  Salome,  her  sister.*  According  to  Lichtenstein, 
124,  the  two  brothers,  Joseph  and  Clopas,  married  two 
sisters,  both  named  Mary.  Clopas  dying,  Joseph  took  his 
wife  Mary  and  her  children  into  his  family.  Thus,  the  chil- 
dren were  the  Lord's  cousins,  both  on  His  mother's  and 
father's  side,  and  brothers  and  sisters  by  adoption. 

This  explanation,  though  not  without  its  advantages, 
rests  upon  no  certain  historic  basis.  There  maybe  no  good 
reason  to  question  the  assertion  of  Hegesippus,'  that  Clopas 

>  Eusebius,  iii.  11.  "So  Lange,  in  Herzog,  vi.  409. 

'  In  Eusebiua,  iii.  11. 


108  TOE   LIFE    OF    OUR   LORD. 

was  the  brother  of  Joseph,  though  it  does  not  appear 
whether  lie  uses  the  terra  brother  strictly,  or  as  meaning 
that  the  two  married  sisters.  And  it  may  also  be  admitted 
that  Alpheus  and  Clopas  are  one  and  the  same  person.  But 
there  is  no  proof  of  the  early  death  of  Alpheus,  nor  that 
Joseph  adopted  his  children ;  and  the  absence  of  all  allusion 
in  the  Evangelists  to  Mary,  the  real  mother  of  these  children, 
when  they  are  collectively  mentioned,  is  very  surprising. 

A  tradition  that  makes  Joseph  to  have  married  the  wife 
of  his  brother  Alpheus,  according  to  the  law  regulating 
Levirate  marriages,  to  raise  up  seed  to  his  brother,  and 
that  the  fruit  of  this  marriage  was  four  sons  and  two 
daughters,  needs  no  confutation.1 

Second,  that  these  brothers  ami  sisters  of  the  Lord  were 
His  cousins,  the  children  of  Alpheus  and  Mary.  This  view 
rests  upon  the  supposition  that  His  mother  and  Mary,  wife 
of  Alpheus,  were  sisters.  Of  this  Mary  we  have  little 
knowledge.  It  is  generally  supposed  that  she  stood  in  the 
relation  of  wife  to  Alpheus,  though  some  have  questioned 
it.'  She  is  also  spoken  of  as  mother  of  James  the  Less,  and 
of  Joses,  (Matt,  xxvii.  56  ;  Mark  xv.  40.)  Was  she  also 
sister  to  Mary,  mother  of  the  Lord  ?  This  has  been  gen- 
erally  inferred  from  John  xix.  25  :  "  Now  there  stood  by 
the  cross  of  Jesus,  His  mother,  and  His  mother's  sister, 
Mary,  wife  of  Clopas,  and  Mary  Magdalene."  But  are  three 
or  four  persons  mentioned  here?  Many  maintain  that 
there  are  four,  the  sister  of  the  Lord's  mother  being  a  dis- 
tinct person  from  the  wife  of  Clopas.3  In  favor  of  this  con- 
struction is  the  fact  that  two  sisters  would  otherwise  have 
the  same  name/ 

1  Schaff,  13;  Grcswell,  ii.  113. 

2  See  John  xix.  i>5.     Mapia  tj  tov  KAwrra,  which  some  understand  to  mean 
daughter  of  Clopas.     Winer,  ii.  f>s. 

3  So  Meyer.  Alford,  Wieseler,  Lanpe,  Teschendorf,  Da  Costa. 

<  See,  on  the  other  side,  Ebrard,  655,  note  ^3;  Stier,  vii.  4t>7 ;  Olshausen 
and  Luthardt,  in  l«co. 


THE  LORD'S  BRETHREN.  109 

In  this  uncertainty  respecting  the  relationship  of  Mary, 
wife  of  Clopas,  to  the  Lord's  mother,  it  cannot  be  positively 
affirmed  that  her  children  were  His  cousins,  or  relatives  at 
alL  Ifj  however,  this  be  admitted,  the  question  remains, 
can  these  sons  of  Alpheus  and  Mary  be  identified  with  His 
brothers?  The  names  of  the  former  were  James  and 
Joses.  Two  of  the  latter  have  the  same  names.  That 
James,  son  of  Alpheus,  was  an  apostle  is  expressly  said. 
(Matt.  x.  3,  and  elsewhere.)  Of  Joses  we  know  nothing.1 
It  is  affirmed  that  beside  Joses,  Alpheus  and  Mary  had  an- 
other son,  named  Jude  or  Judas.  In  the  list  of  the  apostles 
as  given  by  Luke,  (vi.  16  ;  Acts  L  13,)  a  Judas  is  mentioned 
as  standing  in  some  relation,  not  defined,  to  a  James; 
IovSas  Icuco>/3ov,  Judas  of  James.  Many  suppose  the  frater- 
nal relation  to  be  meant,  as  in  our  version,  Judas  brother 
of  James."  Others  suppose  the  paternal  relation,  Judas 
son  of  James.'  This  latter  construction  finds  some  con- 
firmation in  the  fact  that  Judas  is  not  anywhere  brought 
into  relationship  to  Alpheus  and  Mary.  If  the  latter  was 
really  his  mother,  why  should  not  his  name  be  mentioned 
in  connection  with  that  of  his  brother  James,  both  being 
apostles  ?  She  is  called  the  mother  of  James  and  Joses, 
not  of  James  and  Judas.  It  does  not  then  appear  at  all 
certain  that  Alpheus  and  Mary  had  more  than  two  sons, 
James  and  Joses,  of  whom  the  former  was  an  apostle. 
The  language  in  the  epistle  of  Jude,  where  the  writer 
speaks  of  himself  as  "  brother  of  James,"  decides  nothing 
till  we  have  learned  whether  he  is  the  same  person  as  the 
apostle  Judas.  The  inference  from  verse  17  that  he  was 
not  an  apostle,  is  not  conclusive. 

Supposing  it,  however,  to  be  shown  that  Jesus  had 
three  cousins  german,  James,  Judas,  and  Joses,  of  whom 

1  Sepp,  ii.  248,  would  identify  him  with  Barsabaa,  Acts  i.  23,  but  without 
a  particle  of  evidence. 

»  So  Norton,  Alford.  »  Meyer,  Oosterzee,  Ewald. 


110  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

the  first  two  were  apostles,  can  what  is  said  of  the  Lord's 
brethren  by  the  Evangelists  be  applied  to  them  ?  That 
they  should  be  uniformly  called  His  brothers,  never  His 
cousins,  is,  as  has  been  already  observed,  remarkable,  but 
not  decisive.  Still  more  remarkable  is  it  that  they  never 
appear  in  connection  with  their  own  mother,  but  always 
with  His  mother,  as  if  her  constant  companions,  (John  ii.  1 2 ; 
Matt.  xii.  46.)  A  stronger  objection  to  their  identity  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  Lord's  brothers  are  spoken  of  as 
not  believing  in  Him  till  the  end  of  His  ministry,  or  per- 
haps, till  after  His  resurrection,  while  two  of  the  sons  of 
Alpheus  and  Mary  were  early  called  into  the  ranks  of  the 
apostles.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  His  brethren,  who 
came  with  IDs  mother  desiring  to  speak  with  Him,  (Matt, 
xii.  46;  Luke  viii.  19,)  could  have  been  at  that  time  apos- 
tles, and  so  His  constant  attendants.  Their  language  at  a 
later  period,  as  given  by  John,  (vii.  3,  4,)  when  they  de- 
sired him  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  the  express  testimony 
of  the  Evangelist,  (v.  5,)  for  "  neither  did  His  brethren  be- 
lieve on  Him,"  seem  most  plainly  to  disprove  their  apostle- 
ship.  Moreover,  a  line  of  distinction  between  His  disciples 
and  apostles,  and  His  brethren,  is  kept  up  in  the  evangelical 
narratives,  from  the  beginning  of  His  ministry  till  its  close, 
and  nowhere  appears  more  marked  than  after  His  ascen- 
sion, (Acts  i.  13-14.)  It  is  also  recognized  by  St.  Paul 
many  years  later,  (1  Cor.  ix.  5.) 

Upon  the  other  hand,  much  stress  is  placed  by  many 
upon  the  words  of  Paul,  (Gal.  i.  19,)  "But  other  of  the 
apostles  saw  I  none,  save  James,  the  Lord's  brother."  ■ 
From  these  words  it  is  inferred  that  James,  the  Lord's 
brother,  was  an  apostle  and  must  have  been  James  the  son  of 
Alpheus,  as  it  is  agreed  that  James  the  son  of  Zebedee  could 

1  See  also  ii.  9,  where  James,  Cephas,  and  John  are  spoken  of  as  pillars. 
Wieseler  asserts  that  the  James  of  ch.  i.  is  the  Lord's  brother,  the  James  of 
ch.  ii.  the  son  of  Alpheus.  Most,  however,  maintain  that  the  same  person 
is  meant  in  both. 


THE   LORD'S   BRETHREN.  Ill 

not  be  meant.  It  follows  that  the  term  brother  is  equiv- 
alent to  cousin,  and  thus  that  by  the  Lord's  brethren  we  are 
to  understand  His  cousins,  the  sons  of  Alpheus  and  Mary. 

The  value  of  this  argument  rests  upon  the  grammatical 
construction  of  St.  Paul's  words.  Does  he  mean  to  desig- 
nate James  as  an  apostle,  or,  on  the  contrary,  to  distinguish 
him  from  the  apostles  ?  His  language  is  by  no  means  clear. 
It  may  be  read,  "  I  saw  none  other  of  the  apostles,  but  only 
(I  saw)  James,  the  Lord's  brother."  '  In  this  way,  James  is 
brought  into  direct  contrast  with  the  apostles.  But  the 
other  construction,  that  identifies  James  as  an  apostle,  in 
the  stricter  or  wider  sense,  has  much  in  its  favor.'  It  finds 
some  confirmation  in  Acts  i  \ .  27,  where  mention  is  made  of 
"  apostles,"  with  seeming  reference  to  Peter  and  James. 
His  apostleship  appears  also  to  be  proved  by  the  mention  of 
1 i  i  a  name  (ii.  9)  before  those  of  Cephas  and  John,  who  were 
undeniably  the  leading  apostles  among  the  Twelve,  for  could 
such  a  preeminence  be  given  to  any  one  not  an  apostle  ? 

It  is  in  this  high  position  given  to  James,  the  brother 
of  our  Lord,  that  we  find  our  strongest  argument  for  his 
identification  with  the  apostle  James,  the  son  of  Alpheus. 
There  is  little  doubt  that  he  is  the  same  person  mentioned, 
(Acts  xii.  17,  rv.  13,  xxi.  18,)  and  the  author  of  the  epistle 
bearing  his  name.  From  all  the  Evangelists  say  of  him,  it 
is  plain  that  he  was  a  man  very  conspicuous  in  the  Church, 
and  of  great  influence  and  authority.  This,  however,  is 
greatly  exaggerated  by  some,  who  make  him  the  superior 
of  Peter.'    Some  would  explain  the  eminence  ascribed  to 

«  8ee  Winer,  Grammatik,  667.  Wieseler,  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1842,  92,  who 
cites  Fritzache ;  aliutn  apostolum  non  villi,  sed  («t  fin)  vidi  Jacobum,  fratrem 
Domini.  Schaff,  17  ;  Thiersch,  Kircben  Gesch.,  80 ;  Riggenbach,  296.  Com- 
pare Rev.  xxi.  27  ;  Matt.  xii.  4  ;  Luke  ir.  26-7.  Very  early,  Victorinus,  in  his 
commentary,  in  loco,  cited  by  Mill,  252,  said :  "  Paul  disclaims  James  as  tin 
apostle,  saying  that  he  saw  no  other  apostle  beside  Peter,  but  only  James." 

*  See  Ellicott,  commentary,  in  loco,  who  refers  to  1  Cor.  i.  14. 

•  So  Fitch,  The  Lord's  Brother,  New  York,  18.r)8,  who,  although  he  denies 
him  to  be  one  of  the  Twelve,  exalts  him  to  the  rank  of  a  Pope,  whose  word  is 


112  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD. 

him,  and  the  importance  attached  to  his  opinion  in  all 
points  respecting  the  observance  of  the  law  by  the  Gentiles, 
to  the  peculiar  position  which  he  occupied  as  the  first  bish- 
op and  head  of  the  mother  and  central  church  at  Jerusa- 
lem, identifying  him  with  James  the  Just,  of  whom  Eusebius 
speaks,  (ii.  1  and  23,)  "  He  was  the  first  who  received  the 
episcopate  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem."  It  is  not,  then,  ne- 
cessary to  suppose  him  to  have  been  an  apostle,  or  to  have 
exercised  any  special  apostolic  functions,  in  order  to  ex- 
plain why  he  should  be  placed  upon  an  apparent  equality 
with  the  apostles.  As  the  Lord's  brother,  a  more  than  or- 
dinary degree  of  respect  would  naturally  be  paid  him,  and 
to  him,  when  alone,  Jesus  appeared  after  His  resurrection, 
as  he  had  done  to  Peter,  (1  Cor.  xv.  7.)  Rigidly  observant 
himself  of  the  law,  and  a  strenuous  defender  of  the  Mosaic 
institutions,  his  counsels  had  great  weight  when  the  rela- 
tions of  the  circumcision  and  the  uncircumcision  were  in 
question.' 

Into  a  more  particular  consideration  of  this  point  it 
would  be  foreign  to  our  purpose  to  enter.  We  conclude 
that  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  was  not  necessarily  an 
apostle  and  bishop,  but  may  have  been  simply  bishop,  and 
therefore  is  not  to  be  identified  with  James  the  son  of  Al- 
pheus.  If,  then,  these  were  distinct  persons,  the  former  must 
be  identified  with  that  James  mentioned  with  Joses,  Simon, 
and  Judas,  (Matt.  xiii.  55,)  as  one  of  Christ's  brethren.  If 
so,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Judas,  the  author  of  the 
Epistle,  who  calls  himself  brother  of  James,  was  also  one  of 
these  four  brethren,  and  not  a  son  of  Alpheus  and  Mary. 

If  then,  for  the  reasons  now  given,  the  theory  that  these 
brethren  of  the  Lord  were  his  cousins  german,  the  children 
of  Alpheus  and  Mary,  be  rejected,  we  come  to  the  third 

final :  "  Paul  did  not  hesitate  to  speak  his  mind  to  Peter ;  but  however  much 
Paul  or  Peter  may  differ  from  James,  and  they  be  in  the  right,  when  once 
James  has  spoken,  never  is  there  a  word  in  reply." 
1  See  Thiersch,  Kirchen  Gesch.,  80  ;  Schaff,  61. 


THE   LORD'S    BRETHREN.  113 

explanation — that  these  were  the  sons  and  daughters  of 
Joseph  and  Mary,  and  His  own  brothers  and  sisters.  But 
here  we  meet  dogmatic  difficulties.  It  is  an  article  of  faith 
with  the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches  that  Mary  had  no 
children  beside  the  Lord,  and  the  same  opinion  rules  in  the 
Lutheran  symbols.  In  the  Helvetic  confession  Jesus  is 
spoken  of  as  natus  ex  Maria,  semper  virgine.  A  large 
number  of  Protestant  writers  in  all  the  religious  bodies 
strongly  maintain  the  perpetual  virginity.  Pearson1  says 
that  the  Church  of  God  in  all  ages  has  maintained  that  she 
continued  in  the  same  virginity."  It  has  been  well  remarked 
by  Alexander  (on  Mark  vi.  3)  "  that  multitudes  of  Protes- 
tant divines  and  others,  independently  of  all  creeds  and  con- 
fessions, have  believed,  or  rather  felt,  that  the  selection  of 
a  woman  to  be  the  mother  of  the  Lord  carries  with  it,  as  a 
necessary  implication,  that  no  other  could  sustain  the  same 
relation  to  her;  and  that  the  selection  of  a  virgin  still  more 
necessarily  implied  that  she  was  to  continue  so.  After  all, 
It'll  not  so  much  a  matter  of  reason  or  of  faith  as  of  taste 
and  sensibility;  but  these  exert  a  potent  influence  on  all  in- 
terpretation, and  the  same  repugnance,  whether  rational  or 
merely  sentimental,  which  led  fathers  and  reformers  to 
deny  that  Christ  had  brothers  in  the  ordinary  sense,  is 
likely  to  produce  the  same  effect  on  multitudes  forever,  or 
until  the  question  has  received  some  unequivocal  solution." 
The  early  belief  in  the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary  may 
perhaps  be  explained  as  springing  in  part  from  a  desire  to 
separate  Christ,  as  widely  as  possible,  from  other  men.  He 
had  no  brothers  or  sisters ;  His  mother  had  no  other  child. 
Thus,  not  only  in  His  essential  personality,  but  in  the  out- 
ward circumstances  of  His  life,  a  broad  line  of  distinction 
was  to  be  drawn  between  Him  and  all  beside.  To  suppose 
that  He  had  brothers  according  to  the  flesh  was  to  degrade 
Him  by  bringing  Him  into  too  close  relationship  with  weak 
'  Upon  the  Creed,  art.  iii.  *  So  Mill,  274. 


114  THE   LIFE   OP   OUR   LORD. 

and  sinful  men.  The  special  honor  paid  to  Him  would  natu- 
rally cause  high  honor  to  be  paid  to  his  mother.  To  this 
was  added  the  admiration  of  celibacy  springing  from  Gnos- 
tic principles,  that  began  very  early  to  prevail.  Both  His 
parents  were  thought  to  be  honored  by  being  presented  to 
the  world  as  virgins.  Occasionally  from  time  to  time,  and 
especially  for  a  few  years  past,  the  tendency  has  manifested 
itself  to  bring  more  distinctly  forward  the  humanity  of 
Christ,  and  to  give  prominence  to  the  truth  expressed  by 
the  Apostle,  (Heb.  ii.  11,)  "For  both  he  that  sanctifieth  and 
they  who  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one."  Not  to  remove 
Him  from  the  pale  of  human  sympathies,  but  to  bring  Him 
in  as  many  points  as  possible  into  contact  with  the  ex- 
periences of  human  life,  has  seemed  to  many  best  to  corre- 
spond to  the  historical  statements  of  the  Gospel,  and  the 
doctrinal  statements  of  the  Epistles.  Hence  perhaps  there 
is  now  felt  less  reluctance  to  regard  Him  as  having  been  in 
the  truest  sense  a  member  of  the  family,  having  brothers 
and  sisters  bound  to  him  by  ties  of  blood,  and  as  a  partaker 
of  the  common  lot  in  all  the  relationships  of  life  which  were 
possible  to  Him,  that  thus  "  He  might  be  touched  with  a 
feeling  of  our  infirmities." ' 

Leaving  all  theological  considerations  on  one  side,  the 
more  natural  and  obvious  interpretation  of  the  language 
of  the  Evangelists  leads  to  the  belief  that  the  Lord's 
brothers  and  sisters  were  such  in  the  ordinary  mean- 
ing of  the  words.  In  the  case  of  another  no  hesitation 
could  be  felt.  Not  only  are  they  always  called  His  brothers, 
but  are  always  found  in  company  with  His  mother.  They 
are,  indeed,  not  called  her  sons,  but  this  is  explainable  from 
the  fact  that  they  are  spoken  of  only  in  their  relations  to 
Him,  who  everywhere  in  the  Gospel  is  the  one  great  cen- 
tral figure. 

The  expression  in  Matt.  i.  25,  "  And  knew  her  not  till 
1  See  Herder,  quoted  in  Schaff,  30,  note. 


THE  LORD'S   BRETHREN.  115 

she  had  brought  forth  her  first-born  son,"  '  certainly  implies 
that  afterward  they  lived  together  as  husband  and  wife. 
Still  this  is  not  decisive.  Alexander,  (in  loco,)  after  referring 
to  some  examples  of  the  use  of  u  till "  in  other  parts  of 
the  Scriptures,  observes :  "  These  examples  are  sufficient  to 
establish  the  position  that  the  inference  in  question  from 
the  use  of  the  word  tiU,  however  natural,  is  not  conclusive; 
or,  in  other  words,  that  this  expression  cannot  prove  the 
fact  of  subsequent  cohabitation  in  the  face  of  cogent  reasons 
for  disputing  it."  Nor  does  the  term  u  first-born  "  (Luke 
ii.  7)  show  that  other  children  were  subsequently  born.  As 
primogeniture  brought  with  it  under  the  law  certain  privi- 
leges, the  term  "  first-born  "  acquired  a  technical  meaning, 
and  was  applied  to  all  who  had  a  right  to  those  privileges, 
without  regard  to  the  fact  that  they  were,  or  were  not,  the 
only  children  of  their  parents. 

The  existence  of  two  households  having  so  many  names 
in  common  as  those  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  Alpheus  and 
Mary,  are  supposed  to  have  had,  is  regarded  by  some  as 
highly  improbable.  As  we  have  seen,  however,  it  is  not 
certain  that  Mary  and  Alpheus  had  but  two  sons,  James  and 
Joses ;  and  that  these  two  very  common  names  should  bo 
found  among  the  Lord's  brethren  is  not  at  least  more  sur- 
prising than  that,  according  to  the  view  that  makes  them 
His  cousins,  the  Lord's  mother  and  her  sister  should  both 
have  the  name  of  Mary.1  Others  regard  it  as  a  decisive 
proof  that  Mary  had  no  other  son,  that  Jesus  upon  the 
cross  should  have  commended  her  to  the  care  of  John, 
(John  xix.  26-27.)  But  why,  if  James  and  Judas  were 
apostles  and  His  cousins,  sons  of  her  sister  and  long  inmates 
of  her  family,  and  it  was  a  question  of  kinship,  did  he  not 
commend  her  to  their  care  ?    If  His  brethren  were  at  this 

1  Teschendorf  omits  "  first-born  ; "  Alford  retains  it. 
■  According  to  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  i.  231,  Josephus  mentions  21  Simons, 
17  Joses,  and  16  Judos. 


116  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

time,  as  we  may  suppose,  unbelieving,  and  thus  in  a  most 
vital  point  without  sympathy  with  her,  we  can  well  under- 
stand why  He  should  give  John,  the  disciple  whom  He 
loved,  to  be  her  son,  not  so  much  to  supply  her  mere  bodily 
needs,  as  to  comfort  and  strengthen  her  in  the  peculiar 
trials  through  which  she  would  be  immediately  called  to 
pass. 

It  is  evident  from  this  brief  survey  of  the  chief  opinions 
respecting  the  Lord's  brethren  and  their  relations  to  Jesus, 
that  the  data  for  a  very  positive  judgment  are  wanting.1 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  very  general,  not  universal, 
opinion  in  the  church,  has  been  in  favor  of  the  perpetual 
virginity  of  Mary.  In  regard  to  the  Lord's  brethren,  there 
were  some  in  very  early  times  who  thought  them  the  chil- 
dren of  Joseph  and  Mary,  but  most  thought  them  to  be 
either  His  cousins,  or  the  children  of  Joseph.  It  is  difficult 
to  tell  which  of  the  latter  two  opinions  is  the  elder,  or  best 
supported  by  tradition.  The  words  of  Calvin  on  Matt.  i. 
25,  deserve  to  be  kept  in  mind  :  Certe  nemo  unquam  hoc 
de  re  questionem  movebit  nisi  curiosus  ;  nemo  vero  perti- 
naciter  insistet  nisi  contentiosus  riocator. 

1  Of  the  more  recent  writers,  many  affirm  that  they  were  the  children  of 
Joseph  and  Mary,  and  His  own  brothers  and  sisters.  So  Neander,  Greswell, 
Wieseler,  Alford,  Stier,  Schaff,  Meyer,  Winer,  Ewald,  Lechler,  Owen ;  con- 
tra, Lange,  Olshausen,  Lichtenstein,  Friedlieb,  Norton,  Sepp,  Hug,  Thiersch, 
Alexander,  Mill,  Ellicott  See  upon  the  subject,  Das  Verhaltniss  des  Jacobus 
Bruders  des  Herrn  zu  Jacobus  Alphai,  von  Philipp  Schaf.  Berlin,  1842. 
Wieseler  in  Stud.  u.  Krit,  1842.  Lange  in  Herzog,  vi.  409 ;  Lichtenstein,  100 ; 
Alford  on  Matt.  xiii.  55 ;  Winer,  i.  525 ;  Smith,  Bib.  Diet,  i.  231  and  920  j 
Mill,  Mythical  Interpretation,  219. 


PART  II. 

FROM  THE  BAPTISM  TO  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MINISTRY 
IN  GALILEE;  OR  FROM  JANUARY,  780,  TO  APRIL,  781. 
27,  28  A.  D. 


The  Divisions  of  the  Lord's  Ministry. 

In  order  to  understand  the  scope  of  the  Lord's  ministry 
in  its  external  aspects,  as  narrated  by  the  Evangelists,  it  is 
necessary  to  keep  in  mind  certain  great  facts  that  gave  it 
form  and  character.  We  shall  thus  be  prepared  to  under- 
stand the  significance  of  particular  events,  and  to  assign 
them  their  proper  places  in  the  history. 

Hr8ty  The  Lord  came  to  a  nation  in  covenant  with 
God — His  elect  people.  He  had  chosen  for  them  a  land  in 
which  they  might  dweU  apart  from  the  nations,  and  in  a 
wonderful  manner  had  given  them  possession  of  it.  He 
had  given  them  laws  and  institutions,  which,  rightly  used, 
should  secure  their  highest  national  well-being.  He  had 
established  His  temple  in  their  chief  city,  in  which  He  re- 
vealed Himself  in  the  Visible  Glory,  and  which  was  ap- 
pointed to  be  "  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  nations."  How 
highly  they  had  been  honored  and  blessed  of  God  is  seen 
from  His  words  (Exod.  xix.  5-6) :  "If  ye  will  obey  my  voice 
indeed,  and  keep  my  Covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  to  me  a 


118  THE  LIFE   OUR   LORD. 

peculiar  treasure  above  all  people,  and  ye  shall  be  unto  me 
a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation."  And  from  among 
them  should  the  Great  Deliverer,  the  Seed  of  the  woman, 
come.  The  Messiah  should  reign  at  Jerusalem,  and  from 
thence  establish  justice  and  judgment  throughout  the 
earth.  He  was  to  be  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  of  the  family  of 
David,  and  His  birth-place  at  Bethlehem ;  and  many  other 
things  respecting  Him  had  been  foretold  by  the  prophets. 

To  a  people  thus  in  covenant  with  God,  and  awaiting 
the  Messiah,  Christ  came.  There  was  a  general  expecta- 
tion that  He  was  about  to  come,  and  a  general  desire  for 
His  coming.  The  appearing  of  the  Baptist,  and  his  message, 
gave  a  new  impulse  to  the  common  feeling,  and  doubtless 
in  the  minds  of  many  changed  what  had  been  but  an  in- 
definite expectation  into  an  assured  hope.  But  how  should 
the  nation  discern  the  Messiah  when  He  came?  Should 
there  be  such  wonderful  signs  attending  His  birth  that  it 
should  at  once  be  known?  Or  should  His  infancy  and 
youth  be  passed  in  obscurity?  How  should  His  public 
career  begin?  what  His  acts  as  Messiah?  Here  was  a 
large  field  for  differences  of  opinion  among  the  people,  ac- 
cording to  differences  in  spiritual  character  and  discern- 
ment. But  the  great  part  of  the  nation,  including  most  of 
the  ecclesiastical  rulers  and  teachers,  seems  to  have  had  no 
doubt  that  He  was  to  appear,  not  primarily  as  a  religious 
reformer,  but  as  a  political  leader  and  warrior,  and  that  one 
of  His  first  Messianic  acts  would  be  to  cast  off  the  Roman 
yoke  and  set  the  nation  free.  This  done,  He  would  pro- 
ceed to  restore  the  Mosaic  institutions  to  their  primitive 
purity,  and  fulfil  the  prediction  that  "  out  of  Zion  should  go 
forth  the  law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem." 

It  is  apparent  that,  thus  mistaking  the  character  and 
work  of  the  Messiah,  the  very  intensity  of  their  desire  for 
His  coming  would  but  the  more  certainly  insure  His  rejec- 
tion.    They  had  formed  conceptions  of  Him  which  Jesus 


THE  DIVISIONS    OF  THE  LORD'S  MINISTRY.  119 

could  not  realize.  Their  ideal  Christ  was  not  the  Christ 
of  the  prophets.  To  be  at  once  received  by  them,  Jesus 
must  act  in  a  manner  corresponding  to  their  preconceived 
opinions,  and  thus  fulfil  their  expectations.  But  this  He 
could  not  do,  since  these  expectations  were  based  upon 
misconceptions  of  their  own  moral  needs,  and  of  God's  pur- 
pose. They  felt  deeply  their  political  servitude,  but  were 
unconscious  of  the  spiritual  bondage  into  which  they  had 
fallen.  They  knew  not  how  utterly  unprepared  they  were 
for  the  coming  of  their  Deliverer.  Hence  it  was,  that  Jesus 
could  not  openly  assume  the  name  of  Messiah,  because  it 
had  become  the  exponent  of  so  many  false  hopes,  and  would 
have  gathered  around  Him  a  body  of  followers,  moved  more 
by  political  than  spiritual  impulses. 

A  second  fact  to  be  noted  is,  the  wish  and  will  of  God 
that  the  Jews  should  receive  His  Son.  Here,  indeed,  we 
meet  the  same  problem  that  we  meet  everywhere  in  human 
history — the  foreknowledge  and  purpose  of  God,  and  the 
freedom  and  responsibility  of  man.  According  to  the  eter- 
nal purpose  of  God,  Christ  was  "  the  Lamb  slain  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  and  without  the  shedding  of 
blood  is  no  remission  of  sin.  "  Known  unto  God  are  all 
His  works  from  the  beginning  of  the  world."  But  the 
Jews  knew  not  of  this  purpose,  although,  as  we  now  see,  it 
was  not  dimly  intimated  in  their  sacrificial  rites.  The  Jews 
knew  not  that  they  should  crucify  their  Messiah.  They 
had  not  learned  this  from  their  prophets.  The  Baptist  said 
nothing  of  His  death  ;  Jesus  Himself,  till  near  the  close  of 
His  ministry,  said  nothing  of  it ;  the  Apostles,  down  to  the 
week  of  His  Passion,  did  not  comprehend  it.  When,  there- 
fore, Jesus  presented  Himself  to  the  nation  as  the  Messiah, 
it  acted  without  knowledge  of  the  secret  counsel  of  God, 
and  with  entire  freedom.  He  desired  that  they  should  re- 
ceive Him.  All  that  God  had  done  for  them  from  the  days 
of  Abraham  was  with   the  intent  that   they  might  be  a 


120  THE   LIFE  OF   OUB  LORD. 

people  ready  for  the  Lord  at  His  coming.  The  end  of  all 
the  institutions  He  gave  them  was  so  to  develop  faith  and 
holiness  in  them  that  they  should  discern  and  receive  His 
Son.  And  Jesus  during  His  ministry  gave  them  every  pos- 
sible proof  of  His  divine  character,  and  reproved  and  warned 
and  beseeched  them,  that  He  might  save  them  from  the 
guilt  of  His  rejection;  yet  all  in  vain.  "He  came  unto 
His  own,  and  His  own  received  Him  not."  How  touching 
are  His  farewell  words  to  Jerusalem,  (Matt,  xxiii.  37) : 
"  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together, 
even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and 
ye  would  not." 

Still  a  third  fact  is,  that  as  the  covenant  of  God  with 
the  Jews  was  a  national  one,  so  must  also  Christ's  accep- 
tance or  rejection  be.  From  the  beginning  of  their  history 
God  had  dealt  with  the  people  as  a  corporate  body.  Their 
blessings  were  national  blessings,  their  punishments  national 
punishments.  All  their  institutions  were  so  devised  as  to 
deepen  the  feeling  of  national  unity :  one  high  priest,  one 
temple,  one  altar.  What  was  done  by  the  heads  of  the  na- 
tion was  regarded  as  the  act  of  all,  and  involving  common 
responsibility.  Only  in  this  way  could  the  purpose  of  God 
in  their  election  to  be  His  peculiar  people,  be  carried  out. 
Hence,  in  this  greatest  and  highest  act,  the  acceptance  or 
rejection  of  His  Son,  the  act  must  be  a  national  one.  It 
must  be  done  in  the  name  of  the  whole  people  by  those  who 
acted  as  their  rightful  representatives.  ;  If  those  who  sat  in 
Moses'  seat  should  discern  and  receive  Him,  the  way  for 
the  further  prosecution  of  His  work  was  at  once  opened, 
and  under  His  Divine  instruction  the  nation  might  be  puri- 
fied for  the  glorious  kingdom,  so  often  sung  by  the  psalm- 
ist and  foretold  by  the  prophets.  But  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  He  was  rejected  by  the  nation,  acting  through  its 
lawfully  constituted  heads,  this  national  crime  must  be  fol- 
lowed by  national  destruction.     A  few  might   be  saved 


THE  DIVISIONS   OP  THE   LORD'S   MINISTRY.  121 

amid  the  general  overthrow,  but  the  people,  as  such,  could 
be  no  more  the  holy  and  elect  of  God. 

It  was  under  the  conditions  imposed  by  these  great  his- 
toric facts  that  the  Lord  began  His  ministry  among  the 
Jews.  He  came  to  a  people  in  covenant  with  God,  a  peo- 
ple that  God  desired  to  save,  and  that  must  as  a  people, 
accept  or  reject  Him.  All  the  details  that  are  given  us  of 
that  ministry  by  the  Evangelists  must  therefore  be  viewed 
in  the  light  of  these  facts. 

The  first  event  that  meets  us  in  the  evangelic  narrative, 
is  the  mission  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  forerunner  of  the 
Messiah.  His  work  was  threefold.  First,  he  was  to  an- 
nounce that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand,  and  the  Mes- 
siah about  to  appear.  In  this  announcement  he  especially 
displayed  his  prophetic  character.  Second,  he  was  to 
bring  the  nation  to*repentance,  and  "  make  ready  a  people 
prepared  for  the  Lord."  Here  he  especially  manifested 
himself  as  a  preacher  of  righteousness.  Of  this  righteous- 
ness the  law  was  the  standard,  and  by  the  law  must  the  na- 
tion be  judged.  Hence,  John  was  a  preacher  of  the  law. 
The  burden  of  his  message  was,  H  Repent,  for  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  at  hand."  As  a  wicked,  disobedient  people, 
they  were  not  ready  for  that  kingdom.  True,  they  were 
"  Abraham's  children,"  and  "  sons  of  the  kingdom,"  but 
this  did  not  suffice.  They  had  broken  the  Holy  Covenant, 
they  had  not  hearkened  to  God's  voice,  and  He  had  pun- 
ished them  terribly  in  His  anger.  The  Baptist  came  to 
awaken  them  to  a  sense  of  their  guilt,  to  make  them  see 
how  by  their  unbelief  and  sin  they  had  frustrated  the  grace 
of  God ;  and  thus  move  them  to  repentance.  Comparing 
the  promises  of  God  with  their  fulfilment,  they  might  see 
how  little  He  had  been  able  to  bestow  upon  them,  how 
little  they  had  answered  to  the  end  for  which  He  chose 
them.  How  glorious  the  promises,  how  melancholy  the 
history  !     Their  national  independence  was  gone  ;  the  cov- 


122  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LOED. 

enant  with  the  house  of  David  was  suspended,  and  that 
royal  family  had  sunk  into  obscurity.  Their  high  priest 
was  appointed  by  the  Roman  governor  for  political  ends, 
and  was  a  mere  tool  in  his  hands ;  the  priesthood,  as  a 
body,  was  venal  and  proud ;  the  voice  of  prophecy  had 
long  been  unheard,  and  for  the  teachings  of  inspiration 
were  substituted  the  sophisms  and  wranglings  of  the  Rab- 
bis ;  the  law  was  made,  in  many  of  its  vital  points,  of  none 
effect  by  traditions ;  the  nation  was  divided  into  contending 
sects ;  a  large  party,  and  that  comprising  some  of  the  most 
rich,  able,  and  influential,  were  infidels,  open  or  secret;  some, 
aspiring  after  a  higher  piety  than  the  observance  of  the  law 
could  give,  wholly  ceased  to  observe  it,  and  withdrew  into 
the  wilderness  to  follow  some  sel£devised  ascetic  practices; 
still  more  were  bigots  in  their  reverence  for  the  letter  of 
the  law,  but  wholly  ignorant  of  its  spirit,  and  bitter  and  in- 
tolerant toward  all  whom  they  had  the  power  to  oppress. 
The  people  at  large  still  continued  to  glory  in  their  theo- 
cratic institutions,  in  their  temple,  in  their  priesthood,  and 
deemed  themselves  the  only  true  worshippers  of  God  in 
the  world.  They  were  unmindful  that  almost  every  thing 
that  had  constituted  the  peculiar  glory  of  the  theocracy 
was  lost  by  sin  ;  that  the  Visible  Glory  that  dwelt  between 
the  cherubim  had  departed,  that  there  was  no  more  re- 
sponse by  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  that  the  ark,  with  its 
attendant  memorials,  was  no  more  to  be  found  in  the  Holy 
of  Holies,  that  all  those  supernatural  interpositions  that 
had  marked  their  early  history  had  ceased ;  in  short,  that 
the  whole  nation  "  was  turned  aside  like  a  deceitful  bow." 

To  the  anointed  eye  of  the  Baptist,  the  unpreparedness 
of  the  nation  for  the  Messiah  was  apparent.  He  saw  how 
in  it  was  fulfilled  the  language  of  Isaiah  :  "  The  whole  head 
is  sick,  and  the  whole  heart  faint.  From  the  sole  of  the 
foot  even  unto  the  head,  there  is  no  soundness  in  it,  but 
wounds,  and  bruises,  and  putrefying  sores ; "  and  he  would, 


THE  DIVI8ION8   OP  THE  LORD'S   MINISTRY.  123 

if  it  were  possible,  awake  the  people  to  a  sense  of  their  real 
spiritual  condition.  Unless  this  were  done,  they  could  not 
receive  the  Messiah,  and  His  coming  could  be  only  to  their 
condemnation  and  destruction.  Deliverance  was  possible 
only  when,  like  their  fathers  in  Egypt,  they  became  con- 
scious of  their  bondage,  and  began  to  sigh  and  cry  for  de- 
liverance, (Exod.  ii.  23.)  And  as  the  elders  of  the  people 
gathered  themselves  together  unto  Moses  and  cooperated 
with  him,  so  must  now  the  priests  and  Levites,  and  all  who, 
by  God's  appointment,  held  any  office  among  the  people, 
be  co-workers  with  Jesus.  In  this  way  only  was  it  possible 
th.it  the  promises  of  the  covenant  could  take  effect,  and  the 
predictions  of  the  prophets  be  fulfilled. 

To  awaken  in  the  hearts  of  the  Jews  a  deeper  sense 
of  their  sins,  and  of  the  need  of  cleansing,  John  estab- 
lished the  rite  of  baptism  in  the  Jordan.  He  taught  that 
this  rite  was  only  preparatory,  a  baptism  of  repentance, 
and  that  the  higher  baptism  of  the  Spirit  they  must  still 
receive  at  the  hands  of  the  Messiah  Himself,  who  was 
speedily  to  come.  All  whom  he  baptized  came  confessing 
their  sins.  Thus,  the  extent  of  his  baptism  was  an  index 
how  general  the  repentance  of  the  people,  and  consequently 
how  general  the  preparation  for  the  Messiah. 

Third,  John  was  to  point  out  the  Messiah  personally  to 
the  nation,  when  He  should  appear.  This  was  the  culminat- 
ing point  of  his  ministry,  and  would  naturally  come  at  the 
close  of  the  preparatory  work. 

Let  us  now  survey  for  a  moment  the  Baptist's  ministry 
as  narrated  by  the  Evangelists,  and  see  how  far  its  purpose 
was  accomplished.  First,  he  aroused  general  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  Messiah  was  at  hand.  Second,  his  preach- 
ing brought  great  numbers  to  repentance.  Multitudes 
from  every  part  of  the  land  came  to  his  baptism.  But  of 
these  it  is  probable  that  many  did  not  understand  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  rite,  or  truly  repent  of  their  sins.     Perhaps 


124  THE  LIFE   OP   OUB  LORD. 

with  comparatively  few  was  the  baptism  with  water  a  true 
preparation  for  the  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  it 
is  to  be  specially  noted,  that  those  thus  coming  to  John  to 
be  baptized  were  mostly,  if  not  exclusively,  of  the  common 
people,  and  not  of  the  priests,  or  Levites,  or  members  of 
the  hierarchical  party.  Many  of  the  Pharisees  and  Saddu- 
cees  came  to  be  spectators  of  the  rite,  but  only  with  hostile 
intent ;  or  if  some  received  baptism  at  his  hands,  we  find 
few  or  no  traces  of  them  in  the  subsequent  history,  (Matt, 
iii.  7 ;  Luke  vii.  29-30.)  In  the  hearts  of  those  who  sat  in 
Moses'  seat,  the  spiritual  rulers  and  guides  of  the  nation, 
no  permanent  sense  of  sin  was  awakened,  and  they  could 
not  submit  to  a  baptism  of  which  they  felt  no  need.  To  all 
his  exhortations  they  had  the  ready,  and,  as  they  deemed, 
sufficient  reply,  "  We  have  Abraham  to  our  father."  Thus 
John  did  not  effect  national  repentance.  The  highest  proof 
of  this  is  seen  in  the  deputation  that  was  sent  him  from 
Jerusalem  to  ask  him  who  he  was,  and  by  what  authority 
he  acted,  (John  i.  19-27.)  It  is  plain  from  the  narrative 
that  he  was  wholly  unable  to  satisfy  the  Jewish  leaders 
that  he  was  divinely  commissioned,  or  that  his  baptism 
had  any  validity.  It  followed  of  course,  that  they  paid 
no  heed  to  his  prophetic  or  personal  testimony  to  the 
Messiah. 

As  his  last  official  act,  he  pointed  out  Jesus  in  person 
to  the  nation  as  the  Messiah.  He  whom  he  had  foretold 
was  come.    Henceforth  they  must  see  and  hear  Him. 

Turning  now  to  the  ministry  of  the  Lord,  let  us  con- 
sider it  in  its  relations  to  that  of  the  Baptist,  and  as  under 
those  historic  conditions  that  have  been  already  mentioned. 
His  first  work  was  to  present  Himself  to  the  Jews  as  their 
Messiah,  in  whom  the  covenants  of  God  with  Abraham  and 
David  should  find  their  fulfilment,  all  the  predictions  of  the 
prophets  be  accomplished,  and  for  whom  the  Baptist  had 
prepared  the  way.     Of  His  Messiahship  He  must  give 


THE  DIVISIONS   OP  THE  LORD'S  MINISTRY.  125 

proof,  first  and  chiefly,  by  His  words,  which  should  show 
Him  to  be  the  Truth  of  God  ;  and  second,  by  His  works, 
which  should  show  Him  to  be  the  Power  of  God.  All  the 
scriptural  expectations  created  by  the  announcement  of 
John  were  to  be  realized  in  Him.  Thus,  presenting  Him- 
self to  the  people,  and  especially  to  its  ecclesiastical  rulers, 
and  having  shown  by  the  evidence  of  His  own  works  and 
words,  corresponding  to  the  testimony  of  the  Baptist,  that 
He  was  the  Messiah,  He  must  await  the  action  of  the 
nation. 

The  obstacles  that  stood  in  the  way  of  His  acceptance 
are  obvious.  The  nation  was  morally  unprepared  for  Him. 
Whilst  so  many  were  looking  for  Him,  few  were  looking 
for  Him  in  such  a  guise.  To  say  nothing  of  the  obscurity 
in  which  He  had  hitherto  lived,  and  of  His  supposed  birth 
at  Nazareth,  His  present  conduct  in  no  degree  corresponded 
to  their  expectations.  His  wisdom  and  eloquence  could 
not  be  questioned,  nor  the  feet  that  He  wrought  miracles ; 
but  all  this  did  not  suffice.  He  might  be  a  teacher  sent 
from  God,  or  a  prophet,  but  the  Messiah  must  be  much 
more  than  this.  He  might  perhaps  be,  as  John  declared 
himself  to  be,  a  forerunner  of  the.  Messiah.  A  few,  mostly 
or  wholly  from  the  ranks  of  John's  disciples,  at  once  re- 
ceived Him  as  the  Messiah,  but,  as  afterward  appeared, 
with  most  imperfect  conceptions  of  His  person  and  work  ; 
the  people  at  large,  and  its  rulers,  discerned  Him  not.  It  is 
plain,  from  the  account  of  Nicodemus,  (John  iii.  1-2,) 
that  the  presentation  of  Himself  at  Jerusalem,  and  His 
words  and  works  there,  had  called  forth  no  response  from 
the  ecclesiastical  leaders.  Even  now  their  incredulity  was 
shown  in  a  demand  for  a  sign,  which  He  would  not  give. 

Whatever  hostility  had  manifested  itself  at  this  His  first 
public  appearing  in  Jerusalem,  still  there  was  hope  that  it 
might  be  removed  by  greater  knowledge  of  His  character 
and  work.    The   Lord,  therefore,  still  remaining  in  the 


126  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR    LORD. 

province  of  Judea,  and  thus  directly  under  the  eyes  of  the 
priests,  begins  the  work  of  baptizing.  Many  gather  around 
Him,  and  receive  baptism  at  the  hands  of  His  disciples. 
But  it  does  not  appear  that  any  of  the  Pharisees,  or  of  the 
higher  and  more  influential  classes,  were  among  them,  and 
still  less  any  of  the  rulers.  After  a  summer  thus  spent,  His 
enemies  endeavoring  to  sow  dissensions  between  His  disci- 
ples and  those  of  John,  He  gives  up  His  baptismal  work,  and 
retires  into  Galilee.  Near  a  year  had  now  passed  since  He 
had  been  pointed  out  as  the  Messiah  to  the  nation,  and  yet 
very  few  had  received  Him  as  such,  and  all  who  bore  rule, 
or  certainly  most  of  them,  manifested  an  increasing  hostil- 
ity.    He  found  no  general,  much  less  a  national  reception. 

After  a  few  weeks  spent  in  Galilee,  Jesus  goes  up  the 
second  time  to  Jerusalem  to  a  feast,  and  heals  the  impotent 
man  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  (John  v.)  The  charge  is  at 
once  made  against  Him  that  He  had  broken  the  Sabbath 
by  this  work  of  healing,  and  His  defence,  based  upon  His 
Divine  Sonship,  so  offended  the  ruling  party  that  His  life 
was  in  danger.  This  open  manifestation  of  hostility  marks 
the  first  great  turning-point  in  the  Lord's  ministry.  It  was 
now  apparent  that  the  rulers  at  Jerusalem  would  neither 
listen  to  His  words,  nor  be  convinced  by  His  works.  So 
far  from  recognizing  in  Him  the  Messiah,  His  acts  were 
violations  of  the  law,  and  His  defence  blasphemy.  Hence- 
forth they  stood  to  Him  in  an  attitude  of  avowed  hostility, 
and  waited  only  for  a  sufficient  pretext  to  arrest  Him  and 
put  Him  to  death.  How  far  in  this  they  represented  the 
sentiment  of  the  people  at  large,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to 
say,  but  it  appears  from  the  subsequent  history,  that  al- 
though many  came  to  Christ's  baptism,  yet  that  He  had  not 
at  any  time  a  large  body  of  adherents  in  Judea.  So  far 
as  appears,  the  people  acquiesced  in  the  decision  of  their 
rulers. 

Forced  to  flee  from  Jerusalem,  the  Lord  goes  into  Gal- 


THE  DIVISIONS   OP  THE  LORD'S   MINISTRY.  127 

ilee.  And  now  the  second  stage  of  His  ministry  begins. 
His  work  in  Galilee  seems  to  have  had  a  twofold  purpose. 
It  was  6rst  directed  to  the  gathering  of  disciples,  such  as 
hearing  His  words  felt  their  truth,  and  seeing  His  works 
recognized  in  them  a  Divine  power.  To  Him,  the  true 
Light,  all  who  loved  the  light  would  come.  Thus  He  gath- 
ered around  Him  the  most  receptive,  the  most  spiritually 
minded  from  every  rank  and  class,  and  teaching  them,  as 
they  were  able  to  hear,  the  mysteries  of  His  Person  and  of 
His  Kingdom,  prepared  them  to  be  His  witnesses  unto  the 
nation.  Through  the  testimony  of  a  body  of  faithful  dis- 
ciples, the  rulers  at  Jerusalem  might  yet  be  led  to  hearken 
to  His  words,  and  their  own  faith  be  quickened  by  the  faith 
of  others,  and  thus  the  nation  be  saved.  But  if  this  were 
in  vain,  and  neither  the  words  of  the  Baptist,  nor  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  Himself  and  His  works,  nor  the  testi- 
mony of  the  disciples,  could  convince  them,  these  disciples 
would  still  serve  as  the  foundation  of  that  new  and  univer- 
sal church  which  God  would  build  if  the  Jews  rejected  His 
Son.  I£  because  of  unbelief,  the  natural  branches  should 
be  broken  of£  and  the  heathen  be  grafted  in,  in  that  body 
of  followers  the  Lord  had  those  who  could  serve  Him  as 
the  builders  and  rulers  of  the  new  household  of  God. 

Thus  the  gathering  of  disciples,  whilst,  on  the  one  hand, 
it  looked  toward  the  acknowledgment  by  the  nation  of 
Christ's  Messianic  claims,  and  regarded  such  acknowledg- 
ment as  still  possible,  yet,  on  the  other,  lookeckforward  to 
the  hour  when  He,  whom  the  Jewish  builders  rejected, 
should  be  the  corner  stone  of  a  church,  in  whose  blessings 
Jews  and  Gentiles  should  alike  participate.  Of  this  future 
service  the  disciples  themselves  knew  nothing,  nor  could 
they  till  Christ  had  ascended.  For  the  present,  he  would 
teach  them  such  truth  as  immediately  concerned  Himself 
and  His  work.  He  must  deliver  them  from  the  false  and 
narrow  notions  in  which  they  had  been  educated  by  their 


128  THE  LIFE  OP   OUB  LORD. 

Rabbis,  and,  so  far  as  they  had  ears  to  hear,  open  to  them 
the  purpose  of  God,  as  revealed  in  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets. 

Into  the  details  of  the  Lord's  work  in  Galilee  this  is  not 
the  place  to  enter.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  He  gathered  many 
disciples,  and  that  His  fame  spread  throughout  all  the  land. 
But  the  favor  which  was  showed  Him  in  Galilee  did  not 
propitiate  His  enemies  at  Jerusalem.  They  very  early  sent 
spies  to  watch  His  movements,  and  in  concert  with  the 
Pharisees,  who  were  found  in  greater  or  less  numbers  in 
all  the  villages,  they  organized  a  systematic  opposition  to 
the  progress  of  His  work.  Every  thing  was  done  to  poison 
the  mind  of  the  people  against  Him,  as  a  transgressor  of 
the  law,  and  even  as  in  alliance  with  evil  spirits.  The  fact 
that  a  large  number  believed  in  Him  as  the  Messiah,  was  so 
far  from  proving  the  reality  of  His  Messiahship,  that  it  only 
stimulated  them  to  new  efforts  for  His  destruction.  Thus, 
more  and  more,  the  hope  that  the  nation,  as  represented 
by  its  rulers,  could  be  brought  to  receive  Him,  faded  away. 
His  journey  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  and  reception  at 
Jerusalem,  showed  in  the  plainest  way  that  their  hostility  was 
undiminished,  (John,  chs.  vii.-x.)  It  was  apparent  to  Him 
that  the  "  Kingdom  of  God  must  be  taken  from  them  and  giv- 
en to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof,,,  and  as  pre- 
paratory to  this,  He  began  to  teach  His  disciples  of  His  ap- 
proaching death,  resurrection,  ascension,  and  coming  again. 

The  false  conceptions  entertained  by  the  Jews  respect- 
ing the  person  and  work  of  the  Messiah,  had  to  this  time 
prevented  the  Lord  from  publicly  assuming  this  title  and 
proclaiming  Himself  as  the  Son  of  David  and  rightful  King 
of  Israel.  He  spoke  of  Himself  habitually  as  the  Son  of 
Man.  But,  as  it  became  evident  that  His  death  was  deter- 
mined upon,  He  will  not  permit  the  nation  to  commit  so 
great  sin  without  the  distinct  knowledge  of  His  Messiah- 
ship.    They  shall  not  reject  Him  as  a  simple  prophet,  or  as 


THE  DIVISIONS   OF   THE   LORD'S  MINISTRY.  129 

a  forerunner  of  the  Messiah,  but  as  the  Messiah  Himself. 
In  the  third  or  last  stage  of  His  ministry,  therefore,  we 
shall  find  His  Messianic  claims  made  prominent,  both  in 
His  own  teachings  and  in  the  testimony  of  His  disciples, 
who,  to  the  number  of  seventy,  were  sent  two  and  two  be- 
fore Him  as  He  journeyed  to  Jerusalem.  In  this  city  only 
could  He  die,  for  this  was  "  the  City  of  the  Great  King," 
and  His  death  could  not  be  by  lawless  violence,  or  in  secret, 
but  must  be  in  the  most  public  manner,  and  by  a  solemn 
and  judicial  act,  and  here  He  must  announce  Himself  as  the 
true  King,  the  Son  of  David,  the  long-promised  Deliverer. 
This  He  did  when  He  entered  the  city,  fulfilling  the  pro- 
phetic word,  "Behold,  thy  King  cometh,  sitting  on  an 
ass's  colt"  He  accepted,  as  rightfully  belonging  to  Him, 
the  homage  of  the  multitude,  who  spread  their  garments 
and  branches  of  palm  trees  in  the  way,  and  cried,  "  Ho- 
sanna  to  the  Son  of  David."  "  Blessed  is  the  King  of  Is- 
rael, that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

Thus  in  the  Lord's  public  life  we  seem  to  find  three 
stages  distinctly  marked.  The  first  is  that  period  extend- 
ing from  the  first  Passover  (John  ii.  13)  to  the  feast  when 
the  impotent  man  was  healed,  (John  v.  1,)  and  embraced 
about  a  year.  It  began  with  the  purgation  of  the  Temple, 
and  ended  with  the  attempt  of  the  Jews  to  kill  Him  be- 
cause He  made  Himself  equal  with  God.  During  this  time 
His  labors  were  confined  mainly  to  Judea.  Near  the  close 
of  this  period  we  may  place  the  imprisonment  of  the  Bap- 
tist. The  second  stage  is  that  period  following  His  return 
to  Galilee  immediately  after  the  feast,  (John  v.  1,)  and  em- 
braces the  whole  duration  of  His  ministry  there,  or  about  a 
year  and  six  months.  This  period  may  be  divided  into 
two,  of  which  the  death  of  the  Baptist  will  serve  as  the  di- 
viding line.  The  third  stage  begins  with  His  final  de- 
parture from  Galilee,  and  ends  with  His  death  at  Jerusa- 
lem, and  embraces  five  or  six  months.  The  peculiarities  of 
6* 


130  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LORD. 

these  several  stages  of  ministry  will  be  noticed  more  in  de- 
tail as  each  shall  come  before  us. 


The  Lord9 8  Ministry  in  Judea. 

A  careful  consideration  of  the  Lord's  Judean  ministry 
shows  the  following  characteristics.  It  was  begun  by  an 
open  assertion  of  His  Messianic  character,  in  the  cleansing 
of  the  Temple.  In  this  act  He  assumed  an  authority  based 
upon  His  relation  to  God  as  His  Son,  (John  ii.  16,)  and  in 
it  He  brought  His  claims  directly  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
priests  and  of  all  who  had  any  supervision  of  the  Temple 
service.  This  act  he  follows  by  miracles,  perhaps  wrought 
in  the  Temple,  and  which  could  not  have  been  unknown  to 
the  hierarchy.  As  none  of  the  rulers  acknowledge  Him, 
or  perhaps  even  visit  Him,  except  the  doubting  Nicode- 
mus,  He  leaves  the  city,  and  begins  somewhere  in  the  prov- 
ince the  work  of  baptizing,  which  He  performed  by  the 
hands  of  His  disciples.  He  does  not,  so  far  as  we  know,  go 
about  preaching  in  the  synagogues ;  He  works  no  new  mir- 
acles. All  this  is  in  harmony  with  His  position  as  one  wait- 
ing for  the  recognition  of  the  nation.  The  Baptist  had 
pointed  Him  out  as  the  Messiah.  In  the  Temple,  before  the 
priests  and  elders,  in  the  most  open  and  significant  way,  He 
had  asserted  His  Messianic  authority,  and  given  miraculous 
proof  of  His  divine  commission.  He  had  thus  presented 
Himself  before  those  whom  God  had  appointed  to  rule  the 
nation,  and  into  whose  hands  it  was  given  to  receive  or  re- 
ject Him.  As  He  finds  no  recognition,  He  still  seeks  to 
draw  them  to  His  baptism,  and  thus  lead  them  to  a  right 
knowledge  of  His  work.1  In  all  that  He  does  during  this 
period  there  is  apparently  no  step  looking  forward  to  the 
abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  and  to  the  formation 

1  The  nature  of  this  baptism,  and  its  relations  to  the  baptism  of  John,  will 
be  hereafter  fully  considered. 


JOHN  BEGINS  TO  BAPTIZE.  131 

of  a  church  on  a  new  foundation.  Although  assisted  in  His 
work  by  a  few  who  early  discerned  in  Him  the  Messiah, 
He  seems  to  have  organized  no  body  of  disciples,  and  to 
have  done  nothing  that  indicated  a  purpose  to  gather  out  a 
few  from  the  nation  at  large.  The  whole  Judean  ministry 
is  an  appeal  to  the  people  to  receive  Him  as  the  Messiah 
through  the  divinely  constituted  heads. 


Summer  of  779.    26  a.  d. 

In  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  Luki  Hi.  1-18. 
John  enters  upon  his  work   of  preaching  and  baptiz-  Matt.  iii.  1-17. 
ing.     The  people  throng  to  him  from  all  parts  of  the  Mark  i.  4-11. 
land,  whom  he  baptizes,  and  to  whom  he  bears  witness 
of  the  coming  Messiah.    After  his  ministry  had  continued  John  i.  82-84. 
several  months,  Jesus  comes  from  Nazareth  to  the  Jordan,  Lukk.  iii.  21-22. 
and  is  baptized,  and  immediately  the  Holy  Spirit  descends 
upon  Him. 

The  chronological  questions  connected  with  this  date 
have  been  already  discussed  in  the  essay  upon  the  time  of 
the  Lord's  baptism.  The  mention  by  Luke  (iii.  1,  2)  of 
Pontius  Pilate  as  governor  of  Judea,  of  Herod  as  tetrarch 
of  Galilee,  of  his  brother  Philip  as  tetrarch  of  Iturea  and 
of  Trachelitis,  of  Lysanias  as  tetrarch  of  Abilene,  and  of 
Annas  and  Caiaphas  as  high  priests,  brings  before  us  some 
historical  points  which  demand  our  attention. 

The  will  of  Herod,  dividing  his  territories  amongst  his 
sons,  was,  after  a  time,  confirmed  by  Augustus.  Archelaus 
became  ruler  of  Judea,  Idumea,  and  Samaria,  with  title  of 
ethnarch,  and  with  the  promise  of  the  title  of  king  if  he 
should  rule  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  emperor.1  Herod  An- 
tipas  became  tetrarch  of  Galilee  and  Perea ;  and  Herod 
Philip  tetrarch  of  Gaulonitis,  Trachonitis,  and  Paneas. 
»  Josephus,  Antiq.,  17.  chaps.  8,  9,  and  11. 


132  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB  LOSD. 

The  cities  of  Gadara,  Gaza,  and  Hippo,  Grecian  cities,  were 
joined  to  the  province  of  Syria. 

The  rule  of  Archelaus  was  short.  In  the  tenth  year  of 
his  government,  (759,)  upon  the  accusation  of  his  brethren, 
and  of  the  chief  men  of  Samaria  and  Judea,  he  was  sum- 
moned by  the  emperor  to  Rome,  and,  unable  to  defend  him- 
self against  his  accusers,  he  was  deposed  from  his  dignity 
and  banished  to  Vienna  in  Gaul.1 

After  the  deposition  of  Archelaus,  Judea  and  Samaria 
were  united  to  the  province  of  Syria,  of  which  P.  S.  Qui- 
rinius  (Cyrenius)  was  made  president.  The  immediate  di- 
rection of  affairs  in  Judea  and  Samaria  was,  however,  given 
to  an  officer  called  a  procurator.  The  powers  of  this  of- 
ficer were  not  exactly  defined,*  and  although  subject  in 
general  to  the  president,  yet  in  districts  lying  removed 
from  the  main  province,  large  discretionary  authority  was 
necessarily  put  into  his  hands.  A  considerable  number  of 
troops  were  placed  at  his  command,  and  in  certain  cases  he 
had  the  power  of  life  and  death.  The  sixth  in  order  of 
these  procurators,  or  governors,  was  Pontius  Pilate.  He 
entered  upon  his  office  at  the  end  of  77  8,  or  beginning  of 
779,  and  was  removed  789.* 

Herod  Antipas  ruled  over  Galilee  and  Perea  for  more 
than  40  years,  (750-791,)  and  seems  to  have  kept  these 
districts  in  comparative  peace.  After  his  nephew,  Herod 
Agrippa,  had  received  from  the  Emperor  Caligula  the  title 
of  king,  (790,)  he  was  incited  by  his  wife  to  go  to  Rome 
and  seek  the  same  dignity,  but  instead  of  obtaining  it,  he 
was  banished  to  Lyons,  in  Gaul.  His  territories  were  sub- 
sequently given  to  Herod  Agrippa.  Nothing  is  recorded 
of  Herod  Antipas  by  Josephus  that  sets  him  before  us  in 

»  Antiq.,  17.  13.  2.  *  Winer,  ii.  276. 

*  Winer,  ii.  261.  Greswell,  i.  845,  makes  him  to  have  become  governor  in 
the  middle  of  the  summer  of  779,  and  to  have  continued  in  office  ten  years 
and  two  or  three  months. 


HEROD   ANTIPAS  AND   HEROD  PHHJP.  133 

any  very  favorable  light.  After  he  had  been  tetrarch  a 
considerable  period,  and  when  well  advanced  in  years,  he 
fell  in  love  with  the  wife  of  his  brother,  Herod  Philip,  who 
was  living  as  a  private  citizen  at  Jerusalem,  (Matt.  xiv.  3,) 
and  married  her,  his  former  wife  fleeing  to  her  father,  King 
Aretas.  Not  only  for  this  act  was  he  reproved  by  John 
the  Baptist,  *  but  for  all  the  evil  which  he  had  done,"  (Luke 
iiL  19.)  By  our  Lord  he  was  called  "a  fox."  He  seems 
to  have  been  of  an  easy,  selfish  temperament,  fond  of  pleas- 
ure, unscrupulous,  cunning,  and  superstitious.  That  he 
should  have  ruled  so  long  in  such  stormy  times  shows  at 
least  that  he  had  some  political  tact,  and  artfully  managed 
to  keep  on  friendly  terms  with  his  subjects  on  the  one 
hand,  and  with  the  Romans  on  the  other.  He  had  a  taste 
for  building,  and  erected  Tiberias  upon  the  site  of  an  older 
city,  and  named  it  in  honor  of  the  Emperor  Tiberius.  He 
rebuilt  Sepphoris,  a  few  miles  north  of  Nazareth,  and  made 
it  one  of  the  most  beautiful  cities  of  Galilee.1 

Herod  Philip,  to  whom  was  assigned  Batanea,  Gaulo- 
nitis,  Trachonitis,  and  the  region  around  Paneas,  was  a 
prince  of  mild  character,  who  devoted  himself  to  the  good 
of  his  subjects.1  He  reigned  thirty-seven  years,  (750-787,) 
and  leaving  no  child  at  his  death,  his  territories  were  an- 
nexed to  the  province  of  Syria.  He  also  was  fond  of  build- 
ing, and  rebuilt  Paneas,  and  gave  it  the  name  of  Caesarea, 
in  honor  of  the  emperor.  He  enlarged  the  city  of  Beth- 
saida,  upon  the  sea  of  Galilee,  and  named  it  Julias,  from 
Caesar's  daughter.* 

In  connection  with  Lysanias  and  the  tetrarchy  of 
Abilene,  we  meet  with  some  historical  difficulties.  It  was 
formerly  said  by  some  critics  that  Luke  had  fallen  into 
error,  and  referred  to  a  Lysanias  who,  according  to  Jose- 
phus,  had  long  before  died,  as  contemporary  with  Pilate 

»  Josephua,  Antiq.,  18.  2.  1.  »  Antiq.,  18.  4.  6.  . 

»  Antiq.,  18.  2.  1 ;  War,  2.  9.  1. 


134  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

and  Antipas  and  Philip.  The  accuracy  of  the  Evangelist  is 
now  generally  admitted  ;*  but  a  careful  comparison  of  his 
statements  with  those  of  Josephus  will  show  us  why  the 
name  of  a  ruler  is  mentioned  who  did  not  rule  in  Palestine, 
nor  stand  in  any  apparent  connection  with  the  Gospel 
history. 

Herod  the  Great  came  into  possession  of  his  territories 
by  degrees.  He  became  king  in  717  by  the  conquest  of 
Jerusalem,  but  subsequent  additions  were  made  to  his 
kingdom  through  the  good  will  of  Augustus,  comprising 
Trachonitis  and  the  region  between  it  and  Galilee.  It  is 
in  connection  with  these  additions  that  mention  is  made  of 
one  Zenodorus,  who  had  farmed  the  domain  of  Lysanias," 
and  who  ruled  over  Trachonitis.  This  Lysanias  was  son  of 
Ptolemy,  king  of  Calchis,  under  Lebanon,  and  became  him- 
self king  about  714.  This  prince  was  put  to  death  by 
Antony,  at  the  instigation  of  Cleopatra,  about  720,  and  a 
part  of  his  dominions  given  to  her,  and  subsequently  farmed 
by  her  to  Herod.'  Other  parts  were  farmed  by  Zenodorus. 
This  man,  plundering  the  Damascenes  from  the  district  of 
Trachonitis,  Augustus  deprived  him  of  it,  and  gave  com- 
mand of  it  to  Herod  in  724.  After  the  death  of  Zenodorus, 
he  also  gave  to  him  the  region  between  Trachonitis  and 
Galilee,  and  some  other  of  his  possessions.4 

Of  the  extent  of  this  kingdom  of  Lysanias,  or  the  names 
of  its  provinces,  we  have  little  knowledge.  Calchis  seems 
to  have  been  its  chief  city.  Robinson  identifies  this  city 
with  the  present  Anjar  in  the  Bakaa,  south  of  Baalbek, 
where  considerable  ruins  still  exist.  Lichtenstein  infers 
from  a  comparison  of  the  several  statements  of  Josephus, 
that  beside  Calchis,  the  kingdom  embraced  Trachonitis 
Iturea,  and  Batanea.  Whether  Abila  was  also  embraced 
in  it  is  doubtful,  as  it  is  not  mentioned  by  Josephus.     This 

1  See  Meyer  in  loco.  *  Josephus,  War,  1.  20.  4 

»  Antiq.,  15.  4.  1.  *  Antiq.,  15.  10.  3. 


THE  TETRABCH   LYSANIAS.  135 

city  lay  upon  the  Barada,  some  20  miles  from  Damascus, 
and  between  the  latter  city  and  Calchis,  and  in  part  upon  the 
site  of  the  present  village  Es  Suk.  Robinson  (iii.  484)  says : 
"  The  site  is  very  definitely  assigned  by  the  ancient  itin- 
eraries ;  it  lay  upon  one  of  the  great  roads  from  Damascus 
to  the  sea  coast ;  and  the  place  was  marked  by  ruins,  at- 
testing its  ancient  splendor,  and  by  a  necropolis,  perhaps 
more  extensive  and  remarkable  than  any  other  in  Syria." 
This  position  of  Abila  between  Calchis  and  Damascus  makes 
it  probable  that  it  was  subject  to  Lysanias,  as  he  is  spoken 
of  as  a  neighbor  to  the  latter  city,1  which  would  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  existence  of  a  distinct  principality  between 
it  and  his  own  capital. 

That  part  of  the  territories  of  Lysanias  came  into  the 
possession  of  Herod,  has  been  already  stated.  It  is  certain, 
however,  that  Calchis  did  not,  nor,  so  far  as  we  can  judge, 
did  Abila.  Perhaps  the  latter  and  its  territory  remained 
under  the  rule  of  the  family  of  Lysanias  till  it  was  made 
the  seat  of  an  independent  tetrarchy.  Of  the  formation  of 
this  tetrarchy  Josephus  gives  us  no  notice.  Whether  it 
took  place  soon  after  the  death  of  Herod,  when  his  domin- 
ions were  divided  among  his  sons,  or  at  a  later  period,  is 
matter  of  conjecture.  Its  existence,  however,  a  little  later 
than  the  time  spoken  of  by  Luke,  is  distinctly  recognized 
by  Josephus  in  connection  with  Herod  Agrippa.  This 
prince,  grandson  of  Herod  the  Great,  and  the  Herod  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  received  from  Caligula,  790,  the 
tetrarchy  of  Philip,  now  dead,  and  also  the  tetrarchy  of 
Lysanias."  Thus  these  two  tetrarchies,  only  some  ten  years 
after  the  period  of  which  Luke  speaks,  had  a  contempo- 
raneous existence,  and  were  now  brought  together  under 
the  rule  of  Agrippa.  Whether  the  tetrarch  Lysanias  was 
now  dead  without  heirs,  or  had  been  deposed,  we  know 

1  Josephus,  Antiq.,  18.  16.  8.  '  Antiq.,  18.  6.  10. 


136  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LOED. 

not ;  but  it  appears  that  his  territory  was  at  the  disposal 
of  the  emperor.  Thus  Abilene  became  for  the  first  time  a 
part  of  the  Jewish  kingdom,  and  continued  such  for  several 
years.  To  the  two  tetrarchies  of  Philip  and  Lysanias,  Cal- 
igula added  that  of  Herod  Antipas,  and  subsequently 
Agrippa  received  from  Claudius,  J udea  and  Samaria,  so 
that  he  reigned  not  only  over  all  Palestine,  but  also  over 
Abilene.  As  he  died  early,  leaving  a  son,  Herod  Agrippa 
H.,  only  17  years  old,  his  kingdom  was  again  reduced  to 
a  Roman  province.1  To  this  Agrippa  H.  was  first  given 
Calchis,  and  afterward  he  was  transferred  to  the  tetrarchy 
of  Philip,  comprising  Batanea,  Trachonitis,  and  Gaulonitis. 
"  To  these  he  added  the  dominions  of  Lysanias,  and  the 
province  of  which  Varus  had  been  president."'  Thus,  for 
the  second  time,  the  tetrarchy  of  Lysanias  became  part  of 
Jewish  territory.  Of  its  subsequent  history  nothing  cer- 
tain is  known. 

We  can  now  see  clearly  the  reason  why  Luke,  writing 
after  Abilene  had  been  made  a  part  of  the  Jewish  kingdom, 
should  have  mentioned  the  fact,  having  apparently  so  little 
connection  with  Gospel  history,  that  at  the  time  when  the 
Baptist  appeared  this  tetrarchy  was  under  the  rule  of 
Lysanias.  It  was  an  allusion  to  a  former  well  known  po- 
litical division  that  had  now  ceased  to  exist,  and  was  to  his 
readers  as  distinct  a  mark  of  time  as  his  mention  of  the 
tetrarchy  of  Antipas,  or  of  Philip.  This  statement  respect- 
ing Lysanias  shows  thus,  when  carefully  examined,  the  ac- 
curacy of  the  Evangelist's  information  of  the  political  history 
of  his  times,  and  should  teach  us  to  rely  upon  it  even  when 
unconfirmed  by  contemporaneous  writers.' 

Having  mentioned  the  civil  rulers,  Luke  proceeds  to 
mention  the  ecclesiastical.     "  Annas  and  Caiaphas  were  the 

»  Josephus,  War,  2.  11.  6.  »  Josephus,  War,  2.  12.  8. 

»  See,  in  reference  to  this  point,  Wieseler,  174 ;  Lichtenstein,  130 ;  Winer, 
i.  7  ;  Robinson,  iii.  482. 


ANNAS  AND   CAIAPHAS.  137 

high-priests."  *  Let  us,  therefore,  consider  the  personal 
and  official  relations  of  these  two  men  to  each  other. 

Annas  was  made  high-priest  by  Cyrenius,  the  Romau 
governor  of  Syria,  in  760,  but  was  deposed  by  Gratus  767. 
He  was  succeeded  in  office  by  Ismael,  by  his  own  son  Ele- 
azar,  by  Simon,  and  then  by  his  son-in-law,  Joseph  Caiaphas.* 
The  latter  was  appointed  778,  and  held  the  office  till  790. 
Afterward,  several  other  sons  of  Annas  became  high-priests, 
and  one  of  them,  named  Ananus,  was  in  power  when  James, 
brother  of  the  Lord,  was  slain.' 

It  thus  appears  that  although  Annas  had  been  high- 
priest,  yet  that  Caiaphas  was  actually  such  when  the  Bap- 
tist appeared,  and  that  he  continued  in  office  during  all  the 
public  life  of  Christ.  According  to  the  Mosaic  institutions 
there  could  be  but  one  high-priest  at  a  time.  The  office 
was  hereditary,  and  was  held  for  life.  As  was  to  be  ex- 
pected after  the  Jews  had  fallen  under  bondage  to  the 
heathen  nations,  the  high-priests,  though  nominally  inde- 
pendent, became  tools  in  the  hands  of  their  masters,  and 
this  high  dignity  was  transferred  from  one  to  another,  both 
by  Herod  and  by  the  Roman  governors,  as  their  political 
interests  demanded.  Hence  there  were  often  living  at  the 
same  time  a  number  who  had  filled  this  office,  and  been  de- 
posed. Probably  other  ex-high-priests  besides  Annas  were 
now  living,  and  upon  that  ground  equally  well  entitled  as 
himself  to  the  name.  That  he  should  be  distinctively  so 
called  in  the  passage  before  us,  does  not  then  seem  suffi- 
ciently explained  by  the  fact  that  he  had  been  high-priest 
some  years  before,  and  that  he  still  retained  the  title  among 
the  people  at  large.  Some  ascribe  the  prominence  given 
him  to  the  fact  that  he  stood  high  in  popular  estimation, 

1  Teschendorf  read*  nri  apxlfpevs  Awa  *eal  Kaitupa,  "  Annas,  high-priest, 
and  Caiaphas."  So  Alford.  Compare  Acts  iv.  6,  where  a  like  form  of  ex- 
pression is  used. 

»  Josephus,  Antiq.,  18.  2.  2.  »  Euseb.,  ii.  23. 


138  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

and  still  exerted  great  influence ;  or  that,  as  father-in-law 
of  Caiaphas,  he  continued  to  direct  public  matters.  Against 
this  it  may  be  said  that  Luke  would  scarcely  have  men- 
tioned him  in  connection  with  the  emperor,  the  governor, 
the  tetrarchs,  and  the  high-priest,  unless  he  also  was  filling 
some  high  official  position. 

If,  then,  we  conclude  that  Annas  is  not  mentioned  merely 
as  an  influential  private  person  who  had  once  been  high- 
priest,  what  office  did  he  fill  ?  The  word  apxupevs,  high- 
priest,  does  not  decide  it,  as  it  is  itself  of  indefinite  signifi- 
cation. Hug  (followed  by  Friedlieb)1  supposes  both  Annas 
and  Caiaphas  to  have  held  office  at  the  same  time,  and  to 
have  officiated  as  high-priests  in  turn,  one  at  one  feast  and 
the  other  at  the  next ;  or,  more  probably,  one  during  one 
year  and  the  other  during  the  next.  For  this  supposition 
there  is  no  good  ground,  and  it  implies  a  tenure  of  office  in- 
consistent with  facts.'  Others  therefore  make  Annas  to 
have  been  the  Nasi,  or  president  of  the  Sanhedrim.  Others, 
the  vice-president,  the  office  of  president  belonging  to  the 
high-priest.  Others  still  suppose  that  he  was  the  sagan,  or 
vicarius  of  the  high-priest,  u  in  his  absence  to  oversee,  or  in 
his  presence  to  assist  in  the  oversight  of  the  affairs  of  the 
temple,  and  the  service  of  the  priests." '  "  The  vicar  of  the 
high-priest,  the  next  in  dignity  to  him,  and  the  vice-presi- 
dent of  the  Sanhedrim."  4  But  the  existence  of  such  a 
deputy  is  doubtful.*  Some,  finally,  as  Alford,  referring  to 
the  fact  that  the  Law  directed  the  office  to  be  held  during 
life,  suppose  that  Luke  speaks  of  Annas  as  the  lawful  high- 
priest,  one  who,  having  held  it,  could  not  be  legally  de- 
posed. Meyer  thinks  the  Evangelist  to  have  been  ignorant 
who  was  the  real  high-priest,  and  therefore  erroneously  as- 
cribes this  title  to  Annas. 

It  seems,  from  the  manner  in  which  Annas  is  mentioned, 

i  Archaologie,  73.  »  Josephus,  Antiq.,  18.  2.  2. 

»  Lightfoot,  ix.  38.  «  Greswell,  iii.  200.  •  Winer,  i.  507. 


JOHN  BEGINS  TO  BAPTIZE.  139 

not  only  by  Luke  but  by  John,  that  he  did  in  fact  hold 
some  high  official  position,  and  this  probably  in  connection 
with  the  Sanhedrim.  This  point  will  be  further  examined 
when  we  consider  the  part  he  took  in  the  trial  of  the  Lord. 
That,  in  times  of  such  general  confusion,  when  the  laws  of 
Moses  respecting  the  high-priesthood  were  very  little  re- 
garded, and  offices  became  important  according  to  the 
political  capacity  of  those  that  filled  them,  the  exact  rela- 
tions of  Annas  and  Caiaphas  to  each  other  can  be  deter- 
mined, is  not  to  be  expected.  A  like  difficulty  seems  to 
exist  in  explaining  the  relations  of  Ananus  and  Joshua, 
mentioned  by  Josephus.1 

The  year  during  which  John  began  his  ministry  was 
probably  a  Sabbatic  year,  (Ex.  xxiii.  11.)  According  to 
Wieseler,  such  a  year  was  that  from  Tisri  779  to  Tisri 
780.  Greswell  makes  from  780-781  a  Sabbatic  year.  (He 
admits,  however,  that  the  received  principles  of  the  modern 
Jewish  reckoning  would  require  him  to  place  it  a  year  ear- 
lier.) If  this  year  was  now  observed  by  the  Jews  accord- 
ing to  its  original  intent,  it  was  a  most  appropriate  time 
for  the  Baptist  to  begin  his  labors,  the  people  having  no 
burdensome  agricultural  tasks  to  occupy  them,  and  being 
thus  at  liberty  to  attend  upon  his  instructions.* 

It  is  not  improbable  that  John  may  have  begun  his 
labors  as  a  preacher  of  the  kingdom  some  time  before  he 
began  to  baptize.  Some  instruction  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
rite,  and  some  exhortation  to  convince  of  its  necessity, 
would  naturally  precede  its  administration.  His  preaching 
then  need  not  have  been  confined  to  the  banks  of  the  Jor- 
dan, but  may  have  begun  in  the  wilderness,  and  only  after 
he  began  to  baptize  did  he  remain  in  one  place,  (Luke  iii. 
3.)  From  the  expression  in  Mark  i.  4,  "  John  did  baptize 
in  the  wilderness,"  some  have  inferred  that  he  baptized 

I  Life,  88.  2  j  War,  4.  8.  9.  •  Ewald,  AlterthOmer,  414. 


140  THE   LIFE   OP   OITB  LORD. 

before  he  came  to  the  Jordan.1  But  the  Jordan  was  in- 
cluded in  the  well-known  designation  "  the  desert."  This 
desert,  called  in  Matt.  iii.  1  "  the  desert  of  Judea,"  and  which 
is  mentioned  in  Judges  i.  16,  seems  to  have  comprised  all 
the  region  between  the  mountains  of  Judea  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  lower  parts  of  the  Jordan 
on  the  other.  According  to  some,  this  wilderness  of  Judah 
stretched  along  on  the  west  side  of  the  Jordan,  from  the 
end  of  the  Dead  Sea  to  Scythopolis. 

The  place  where  John  baptized  was  Bethany,  on  the 
east  side  of  Jordan,  (John  i.  28.)  The  textus  receptus  says 
Bethabara,  but  Bethany  is  generally  admitted  to  be  the 
right  reading.' 

The  site  of  the  place  having  been  early  forgotten,  Origen 
conjectured  that  Bethabara  must  be  meant,  and  thus  this 
reading  found  its  way  into  the  text.'  Some  suppose  that 
at  different  times  the  same  place  may  have  had  both  names. 
Bethany  means,  according  to  some,  domus  navis,  "  a  house 
of  ships,"  or  "ferry-house."4  Its  position  is  uncertain. 
According  to  Stanley,  it  was  the  northern  ford  near  Suc- 
coth,  which  is  some  thirty  miles  north  of  Jericho,  (Gen. 
xxxiii.  17,  Judges  vii.  24.)  It  is  strangely  placed  by  Light- 
foot  between  Lake  Merom  and  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  It  was 
doubtless  at  one  of  the  fords  of  the  Jordan,  not  far  from 
Jericho,  and  thus  in  the  great  eastern  line  of  travel,  as 
the  people  came  to  the  feasts.  It  could  not  have  been 
at  the  ford  nearest  the  mouth  of  the  river,  as  the 
depth  is  too  great  to  allow  a  passage,  except  by  swim- 
ming ;  *  but  was  probably  that  nearly  east  of  Jericho  at 
the  mouth  of  Wady  Shaib,  and  which  is  now  the  ordinary 
ford.  Below  this  is  the  ruined  convent  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist,  near  which  the  Latin  pilgrims  bathe  ;  and  two  or 

1  So  Lightfoot.  a  So  Teschendorf,  Alford. 

»  See  Alford's  note  in  loco;  contra,  Stanley,  304,  note  3. 
*  Winer,  i.  167.  *  Robinson,  i.  156. 


PLACE  OP  THE  LORD'S  BAPTISM.  141 

three  miles  lower  still  is  the  bathing  place  of  the  Greek 
pilgrims.  Both  affirm  that  their  respective  bathing  places 
were  hallowed  by  the  baptism  of  the  Lord,  and  by  the  pas- 
sage of  the  ark  of  the  covenant.1  Arculf  (a.  d.  700)  says : 
"  A  wooden  cross  stands  in  the  Jordan  on  the  spot  where 
our  Lord  was  baptized.  The  river  here  is  about  as  broad 
as  a  man  can  throw  a  stone  with  a  sling.  A  stone  bridge, 
raised  on  arches,  reaches  from  the  bank  of  the  river  to  the 
cross  where  people  bathe.  A  little  church  stands  at  the 
brink  of  the  water,  on  the  spot  where  our  Lord  is  said  to 
have  laid  His  clothes  when  He  entered  the  river.  On  the 
higher  ground  is  a  large  monastery  of  monks,  and  a  church 
dedicated  to  St.  John."  *  Willibald  also  speaks  of  the  cross 
as  "  standing  in  the  middle  of  the  river,  where  there  is 
small  depth  of  water,  and  a  rope  is  extended  to  it  over  the 
Jordan.  At  the  feast  of  the  Epiphany  the  infirm  and  sick 
come  hither,  and  holding  by  the  rope,  dip  in  the  water." 

Many  in  modern  times  have  desired  to  place  the  Lord's 
baptism  at  the  spot  where  the  Israelites  under  Joshua 
crossed  the  Jordan,  (Josh.  iii.  16.)  Thus  Lightfoot  says: 
"  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  John  was  baptizing  in  the 
very  place  where  the  Israelites  passed  over ;  and  that  our 
Lord  was  baptized  in  that  spot  where  the  ark  rested  in  the 
bed  of  the  river."  But  it  is  generally  agreed  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  determine  the  precise  spot  where  they  crossed. 
Such  exact  local  coincidences  are  unimportant.  It  is  enough 
that  the  places  were  not  far  removed  from  each  other. 
Ffoulkes "  supposes  John  to  have  baptized  at  three  distinct 
fords  of  the  Jordan :  first,  at  the  lower  ford  near  Jericho, 
to  which  the  people  of  Judea  and  Jerusalem  would  natu- 
rally come ;  second,  higher  up  the  river  at  Bethabara,  to 
which  the  people  of  Galilee  and  the  northern  parts  of  the 
land  came,  and  where   Jesus   was  baptized ;    third,  still 

»  Lynch,  255 ;  Ritter,  Theil  xv.,  536.  «  Early  Travels,  8. 

•  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  i.  1127. 


142  THE  LIFE   OP    OUE  LORD. 

higher  up,  at  iEnon,  a  ford  less  frequented,  but  where  was 
abundance  of  water.  It  is  more  likely,  however,  that  an 
abundance  of  water  should  have  been  found  at  the  lower 
than  the  upper  ford. 

The  recognition  of  Jesus  by  John,  when  the  former 
came  to  be  baptized,  is  to  be  explained,  not  by  the  fact  of 
prior  acquaintance,1  for  such  acquaintance  is  by  no  means 
certain,3  but  by  the  immediate  revelation  of  God.  John  knew 
the  nature  of  his  own  mission,  as  the  herald  of  the  Messiah,  but 
he  did  not  know  who  the  Messiah  was,  nor  when  He  should 
appear.  The  mark  by  which  he  should  recognize  Him  was 
one  to  be  given  at  a  fitting  time,  the  supernatural  descent 
of  the  Spirit  upon  Him,  (John  i.  33.)  How  far  John  may 
have  had  knowledge  of  the  events  connected  with  Jesus' 
birth,  or  been  brought  into  personal  intercourse  with  Him, 
does  not  appear.'  It  is,  however,  very  much  to  be  ques- 
tioned, even  if  he  knew  Him  personally,  whether,  either 
through  his  own  parents,  or  Joseph  and  Mary,  he  had  learned 
any  thing  of  His  miraculous  conception,  or  Divine  character. 
Such  mysteries  were  too  sacred  to  be  prematurely  revealed. 
It  does  not  follow,  as  Alford  supposes,  (Matt.  iii.  14,)  "from 
the  nature  of  his  relationship  to  the  Lord,  that  he  could  not 
but  know  those  events  which  had  accompanied  His  birth," 
nor  is  there  any  proof  that,  prior  to  the  time  when  they 
met  at  the  Jordan,  John  looked  upon  Him  as  the  Messiah. 
At  this  interview,  the  whole  appearance  of  Jesus,  His  de- 
meanor and  language,  so  manifested  His  exalted  character 
to  the  discerning  eye  of  the  Baptist,  illumined  by  the 
Spirit,  that  he  had  an  immediate  presentiment  who  He  was, 
and  could  say  to  Him,  "  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of 
thee."  Such  supernatural  discernment  of  character  was 
sometimes  given  to  the  old  prophets.  So  Samuel  discerned 
the  future  king  in  Saul,  and  afterward  in  David.*     Still  it 

1  So  Hales,  Townsend. 

*  Ewald,  Christus,  162 ;   Krafft,  68 ;  Ellicott,  107.  »  Ebrard,  258. 

*  1  Sam.  ix.  17;   xvi.  12.    Compare  also  Luke  i.  41,  when  John,  yet  a 


TEMPTATION    OP  JESUS.  143 

was  not  till  John  had  seen  the  appointed  sign,  the  descent 
of  the  Spirit,  that  he  could  bear  witness  to  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah.' 

The  placing  of  the  Lord's  baptism,  not  at  the  beginning, 
but  during  or  at  the  end  of  His  Judean  ministry,*  is  wholly 
arbitrary. 

Some  have  inferred  from  Luke  iii.  21,  that  the  descent 
of  the  Spirit  was  in  the  presence  of  the  multitude,  and  vis- 
ible to  all.'  But  it  was  a  sign  peculiar  to  John,  for  he  was 
to  bear  witness  to  others,  who  should  receive  his  witness. 
And  thus  he  says,  (John  L  32-34,)  "  I  saw  the  Spirit " — 
u  And  I  saw,  and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God." 
Others  were  to  believe,  not  because  they  saw,  but  because 
he  bare  record. 


Jan.— Feb.,  780.     a.  d.  27. 

Immediately  after  His  baptism  Jesus  was  led  by  the    Matt.  iv.  1-11. 
Spirit  into  the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  of  the  devil,  and    Mark  i.  12, 13. 
continued  there  forty  days.     After  the  temptations  were    Luke  iv.  1-13. 
ended  He  returned  to  the  Jordan.  Just  before  His  return,     John  i.  19-28. 
John  was  visited  by  a  deputation  of  priests  and  Levites 
from  Jerusalem,  to  inquire  who  he  was,  and  by  what  au- 
thority he  baptized.  In  reply,  he  announces  himself  as  the 
forerunner  of  the  Messiah.     The  next  day  he  sees  Jesus 
coming  to  him,  and  bears  witness  to  Him  as  the  Lamb  of 
God.     The  day  following  he  repeats  this  testimony  to  his    John  i.  29-37. 
disciples.     Two  of  them  follow  Him  to  His  home,  and, 
joined  by  others  soon  after,  go  with  Him  to  Galilee.  John  i.  88-51. 

The  Synoptists  do  not  mention  the  visit  of  the  deputa- 
tion to  the  Baptist,  nor  does  John  mention  the  temptation, 
but  it  is  plain  that  the  latter  preceded  the  former.    The 

babe  in  his  mother's  womb,  leaps  for  joy  at  the  salutation  of  the  Virgin 
Mary. 

»  Meyer  in  loco;  Ebrard,  259.  »  So  Pilkington  and  Whiston. 

•  So  Meyer. 


144  THE   LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

temptation  followed  immediately  upon  the  baptism,  (Mark 
i.  12,)  and  during  the  forty  days  of  its  continuance  John 
remained  in  the  same  place  preaching  and  baptizing.  His 
reputation  seems  now  to  have  reached  its  culminating 
point,  and  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Pharisees  and 
ecclesiastical  rulers  at  Jerusalem.  So  popular  a  religious 
reformer  could  no  longer  be  left  unnoticed,  and  accord- 
ingly, acting  probably  in  an  official  manner  as  the  Sanhe- 
drim, they  sent  a  deputation  of  priests  and  Levites  to  ask 
him  certain  questions.  As  he  denied  that  he  was  "  the 
Christ,"  or  "  Elias,"  or  "  that  prophet,"  his  answers  gave 
them  no  sufficient  ground  of  accusation  against  him,  how- 
ever much  they  might  have  sought  it.  The  next  day  he 
sees  Jesus,  apparently  now  returning  from  the  temptation, 
and  for  the  first  time  points  Him  out  as  He  that  should 
come  after  him,  the  Lamb  of  God,  and  Baptizer  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  This  he  could  not  have  done  till  after  the 
baptism,  for  after  it  was  the  sign  given,  and  immediately 
after  the  descent  of  the  Spirit,  Jesus  departed  into  the  wil- 
derness. This  was,  therefore,  the  first  opportunity  of  the 
Baptist  to  testify  to  Him  personally,  as  the  Christ.  If  the 
baptism  had  not  taken  place  before  the  coming  of  the 
priests  and  Levites,  there  is  no  room  for  it  in  the  subsequent 
narrative.  Some  suppose  that  Jesus  had  returned  from 
the  temptation  before  the  deputation  came,  upon  the 
ground  that  v.  26  implies  His  personal  presence.1  Most, 
however,  place  His  return  upon  the  next  day,  (v.  29.) 

John's  testimony  to  Jesus  was,  up  to  this  time,  general. 
He  knew  that  one  should  come  after  him,  but  who,  or 
when,  he  could  not  say ;  and  this  is  the  character  of  his 
witness,  as  given  in  the  Synoptists.  But  after  the  baptism 
he  could  bear  a  definite  witness.  He  had  seen  and  recog- 
nized the  Messiah  by  the  divinely-appointed  sign,  and  could 
say,  This  is  the  man,  he  is  come,  he  is  personally  present  be- 

>  So  Alford  in  loco. 


JOHN'S  TESTIMONY   TO  JESUS.  145 

fore  you.  To  whom  the  testimony  (vs.  29-34)  was  spoken, 
is  not  certain.  Perhaps  it  was  spoken  before  his  disciples 
only,  though  the  multitude,  and  also  the  deputation  from 
Jerusalem,  may  have  been  present.  As,  however,  the 
Pharisees  generally  rejected  John's  baptism,  as  without 
authority,  and  did  not  acknowledge  his  office  as  a  divinely- 
appointed  herald  of  the  Messiah,  it  was  plainly  idle  for 
him  to  point  out  Jesus  to  them  as  such,  (Luke  vii.  29,  30.) 
But  to  his  own  disciples,  and  to  all  the  people  who,  by  be- 
ing baptized  of  him,  had  acknowledged  his  prophetic  char- 
acter, such  a  designation  of  Him  was  valid,  and  they  would 
recognize  His  Messianic  character  upon  his  testimony.' 

The  next  day  (v.  35)  John  repeats  his  testimony  in  the 
presence  of  two  of  his  disciples.*  One  of  them  was  An- 
drew, and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  other  was  the  Evan- 
gelist himself  though  with  the  reserve  that  characterizes 
him  he  does  not  mention  here,  or  elsewhere  in  his  gos- 
pel, his  own  name,  or  that  of  his  mother,  or  brother.  "  It 
was  about  the  tenth  hour"  that  the  two  disciples  went 
with  Jesus  to  His  abode,  (v.  39.)  If  we  adopt  the  Jewish 
computation,  which  divides  the  day  from  sunrise  to  sun- 
set into  twelve  hours,  the  tenth  hour  would  be  that  from 
8-4  p.  m.*  This,  however,  would  leave  but  a  brief  space 
for  their  interview,  and  seems  inconsistent  with  the  state- 
ment that  "  they  abode  with  Him  that  day."  Some,  there- 
fore, refer  this  to  the  time  when  Andrew  brought  his 
brother  Simon  to  Jesus.  All  the  day  had  the  two  dis- 
ciples been  with  Him,  and  did  not  leave  Him  till  the  tenth 
hour.  Others  say  that  the  two  going  late  in  the  afternoon 
remained  with  Him  during  the  night.  Many,  not  satisfied 
with  these  explanations,  prefer  the  Roman  computation, 

1  At  to  the  view  of  Origen,  that  there  were  three  different  missions  from 
Jerusalem,  distinguished  in  vs.  19,  21,  25,  see  Williams'  Nativity,  264. 

"  Sepp  supposes  these  two  to  have  been  witnesses  of  the  Lord's  baptism, 
according  to  a  Jewish  law  respecting  the  baptism  of  proselytes. 

•  Winer,  ii.  660. 
1 


146  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LOED. 

which"  began  at  midnight.  So  reckoned,  the  tenth  hour 
would  correspond  to  our  10  a.  m.,  and  the  disciples  had 
the  whole  day  for  their  interview.'  Whether,  however, 
the  Roman  computation  of  the  hours  of  the  day  really  dif- 
fered at  all  from  the  Jewish  is  doubtful ;'  nor,  if  so,  does 
the  Evangelist  seem  to  have  ever  used  it.' 

The  finding  of  Simon  (v.  41)  by  his  brother  Andrew, 
and  his  coming  to  Jesus,  was  upon  the  same  day  spoken  of, 
(v.  35.)  It  is  probable,  from  the  form  of  expression,  "  He 
first  findeth  his  own  brother  Simon,"  that  as  Andrew 
brought  his  brother  Simon  to  the  Lord,  so  John  also 
brought  his  brother  James.*  But  Alford  explains  it  as 
"  implying  that  both  disciples  went  together  to  seek  Simon, 
but  that  Andrew  found  him  first." 

The  next  day  (v.  43)  Jesus  departs  to  Galilee.  There 
seems  no  good  reason  to  doubt  that  He  was  accompanied 
by  Simon,  and  Andrew,  and  John,  who  had  recognized  in 
Him  the  Messiah.  Some,  however,  suppose  that  they  re- 
mained with  the  Baptist,  and  did  not  join  Jesus  till  a  much 
later  period.6  This  is  intrinsically  improbable.  Whether 
Philip  was  called  by  the  Lord  before  His  departure,  or  upon 
His  way,  is  doubtful.*  Nor  is  it  certain  that  the  calling  of 
Philip  was  founded  upon  a  previous  acquaintance  with  the 
Lord ;  it  may  have  been  through  the  agency  of  Simon  and 
Andrew,  who  were  of  the  same  city,  (v.  44.)  Philip  now 
brings  to  the  Lord  another  disciple.  Where  he  found  Na- 
thanael  is  not  said,  but  most  probably  upon  the  journey. 

»  So  Ebrard,  276 ;  Ewald,  Christus,  248. 

»  See  Becker's  Gallus,  315  ;  Pauly,  Real  Encyclopadie,  ii.  1017. 

*  Against  it,  Meyer,  Liechtenstein,  Luthardt,  Alford.  See  the  following 
passages,  iv.  6  and  52 ;  xi.  9 ;  xix.  14,  which  will  each  be  examined  in  their 
order.  Greswell,  ii.  216,  admits  that  the  Jewish  and  Roman  modes  of  com- 
putation were  alike,  but  supposes  John  to  have  used  the  modern — from  mid- 
night to  noon,  and  noon  to  midnight 

*  Meyer,  Lichtenstein.  »  So  author  of  "  The  Messiah,"  78. 

*  For  the  former,  Meyer,  Alford ;  for  the  latter,  Tholuck. 


PLACE  OF  THE   TEMPTATION.  147 

As  the  home  of  Nathanael  was  at  Cana  of  Galilee,  (John 
xxi.  2,)  it  has  been  thought  by  some  that  there  he  was 
brought  to  the  Lord. 

The  place  of  the  Lord's  temptation  was  in  the  wilder- 
ness of  Judea  already  spoken  of,  and  cannot  be  more  par- 
ticularly designated.  Tradition  points  to  a  high  mountain 
a  little  west  of  Jericho,  overlooking  the  plain  of  the  Jor- 
dan, and  which  was  the  "  exceeding  high  mountain  "  from 
which  the  Tempter  showed  the  Lord  all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  world.  This  mountain,  in  allusion  to  the  forty  days' 
fast,  was  called  the  Quarantana.  Thomson  says  that  "  the 
side  facing  the  plain  is  as  perpendicular  and  apparently  as 
high  as  the  rock  of  Gibraltar;  and  upon  the  very  summit  are 
still  visible  the  ruins  of  an  ancient  convent."  Robinson 
speaks  of  it  as  "  a  perpendicular  wall  of  rock,  1,200  or  1,500 
feet  above  the  plain."  He  does  not  think  the  name  or  the 
tradition  to  be  older  than  the  crusades,  the  mountain  being 
first  mentioned  by  Saewulf  about  1100  a.  d.,  and  its  name 
a  hundred  years  later.  Stanley  makes  the  scene  of  the 
temptation  to  have  been  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Jordan, 
among  "  the  desert  hills  whence  Moses  had  seen  the  view 
of  ■  all  the  kingdoms  ■  of  Palestine."  '  An  old  tradition 
makes  the  trial  of  Adam  and  Eve  in  Paradise  to  have  been 
forty  days. 

Matthew  and  Luke  differ  in  the  order  of  the  three  temp- 
tations ;  but  on  internal  grounds,  which  cannot  here  be 
given,  that  of  Matthew  is  to  be  preferred.* 

That  Jesus  returned  at  once  from  the  wilderness  to  the 
Jordan,  is  apparent  from  the  whole  order  of  the  narrative. 
Wieseler,  however,  (258,)  makes  a  period  of  5-7  months  to 
have  intervened,  during  which  nothing  respecting  Him  is 
narrated.    This  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 

1  See  Ellicott,  109 ;  Greswell,  ii.  202.  Sepp  also  puts  it  on  the  eastern 
shores  of  the  Dead  Sea. 

1  As  to  the  relation  of  the  fast  to  the  temptations,  see  Greswell,  ii.  206 ; 
Williams,  Nativ.,  244. 


148  THE  LIFE  OP   OUE  LORD. 


Feb.— April,  780.     a.  d.  27. 

Arriving  at  Cana  of  Galilee,  the  Lord,  at  a  marriage  John  ii.  1-11. 
feast,  changes  water  into  wine.    Afterwards  He  goes  down 
with  His  mother,  and  brethren,  and  disci  pies,  to  Caper- John  ii.  12, 1  a 
naum,  but  remains  there  only  a  few  days,  as  the  Passover 
was  at  hand.     From  Capernaum  He  goes  up  to  Jerusalem 
to  attend  this  feast. 

"  And  the  third  day  there  was  a  marriage,"  (v.  1.)  It 
is  disputed  from  what  point  of  time  this  third  day  is  to 
be  reckoned.  Some  would  make  it  the  third  day  after  His 
arrival  in  Galilee ;  *  others,  as  Alford,  the  third  day  from 
the  calling  of  Nathanael,  but  one  day  intervening ;  and 
others,  as  Lange,  identify  it  with  the  day  last  mentioned,  (v. 
43.)  Blunt'  supposes  the  Evangelist  to  have  some  event  in 
his  mind  from  which  he  dates,  but  which  he  does  not  men* 
tion.  But  most  count  from  the  day  of  the  departure 
to  Galilee,  (v.  43.) "  The  order  of  events  may  be  thus 
given  (John  i.  19 — ii.  1) :  the  1st  day,  verse  19,  the  visit  of 
the  deputation  from  Jerusalem ;  the  2d  day,  verse  29,  Je- 
sus returns  from  the  temptation,  and  John  bears  witness 
to  Him ;  the  3d  day,  verse  35,  the  two  disciples  visit 
Him ;  the  4th  day,  verse  43,  He  begins  His  journey  to 
Galilee ;  the  5th  and  6th  days  are  spent  upon  the  way. 
According  to  Luthardt,  on  the  third  day  the  two  disciples 
visit  Jesus ;  on  the  fourth  Simon  is  brought  to  Him  ;  on 
the  fifth  Philip  and  Nathanael ;  on  the  6th  He  is  on  His 
way ;  on  the  seventh  He  reaches  Cana.  Thus,  the  Lord's 
ministry  begins  as  it  ends,  with  seven  days,  whose  events 
are  specifically  mentioned.    At  least  two  days  must  have 

»  So  Friedlieb,  Leben  Jesu,  189 ;  Trench,  Mir.,  83. 

*  Script.  Coincidences,  261. 

'  So  Robinson,  Meyer,  Liechtenstein,  Ellicott 


MARRIAGE    AT   CANA.  149 

been  spent  on  the  way,  as  the  distance  from  Bethabara  to 
Nazareth  was  not  for  from  60  miles.1 

It  is  probable  that  the  Lord  passed  through  Nazareth 
on  His  way  to  Cana.  Ewald  supposes  that  the  family  of 
Joseph  had  at  this  time  left  Nazareth,  and  were  already 
settled  at  Cana."  But  it  seems  conclusive  against  this  that 
Philip  should  speak  to  Nathanael  of  Jesus  as  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, (John  i.  45,)  and  that  Nathanael,  who  was  of  Cana, 
should  know  nothing  of  Him.  The  mother  of  Jesus  seems 
to  have  been  intimate  in  the  family  where  the  wedding  took 
place,  from  which  it  has  been  inferred  that  she  was  a  rela- 
tive of  one  of  the  parties.  One  tradition  makes  Alpheus 
and  Mary,  the  sister  of  the  Lord's  mother,  to  have  resided 
at  Cana,  and  the  marriage  to  have  been  that  of  one  of  their 
sons.  According  to  Greswell,  it  was  the  marriage  of  Al- 
pheus and  Mary  themselves.  Another  tradition,  current 
among  the  Mohammedans,  and  maintained  by  some  in  the 
Church,  makes  John  the  apostle  to  have  been  the  bride- 
groom ;  another  that  the  bridegroom  was  Simon  the  Ca- 
nanite,  the  latter  epithet  being  a  designation  of  his  resi- 
dence, not  of  his  character.  As  no  allusion  is  made  to  Jo- 
seph, the  most  obvious  inference  is  that  he  was  already 
dead.  From  the  fact  that  His  disciples  were  invited  with  the 
Lord,  it  would  appear  that  they  were  friends  of  the  mar- 
ried pair,  or  that  they  were  present  as  friends  of  Jesus. 
It  is  not  certain  that  all  the  disciples  are  here  included ; 
perhaps  only  Philip  and  Nathanael  went  with  Him.*  Some, 
however,  find  in  the  six  water  pots  an  allusion  to  the  Lord 
and  His  five  disciples.4 

The  marriage  took  place  at  "  Cana  of  Galilee."  The 
name  signifies,  in  Hebrew,  a  "  place  of  reeds,"  and  is  once 

1  Epiphanius  puts  the  miracle  at  the  weddiDg  on  the  6th  January,  but 
this  is  rightly  rejected  by  Baron  i  us. 

•  8o  Stanley,  859,  note.  >  Trench,  Mir.,  84. 

«  See  Luthardt,  i.  77 


150  THE  LIFE   OP   OVTR  LORD. 

used  in  the  Old  Testament  as  the  name  of  a  stream  on  the 
borders  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  (Josh.  xvi.  8,)  and  of  a 
city  in  Asher,  (Josh.  xix.  28.)  With  this  city  of  Asher 
Greswell  identifies  the  Cana  of  the  Gospels.  The  addition 
"  of  Galilee  "  here  seems  designed  to  distinguish  it  from 
some  other  Cana.  There  are  now  two  Canas  in  Galilee ; 
one  Kana  el  Jelil,  north  ;  the  other  Kefr  Kenna,  north-east 
from  Nazareth,  and  it  is  disputed  which  is  meant.  Robin- 
son (ii.  347)  shows  that  upon  etymological  grounds  the 
former  is  to  be  preferred,  the  present  Arabic  name  Kana 
el  Jelil  being  identical  with  Cana  of  Galilee,  while  Kefr 
Kenna  "  can  only  be  twisted  by  force  into  a  like  shape." 
He  shows  also  that  the  former  was  by  early  tradition  pointed 
out  as  the  true  site  of  the  miracle,  and  that  only  since  the 
16th  century,  and  for  the  convenience  of  monks  and  travel- 
lers, was  the  latter  selected.  In  this  view  of  Robinson 
most  now  agree.1  De  Saulcy,  however,  (ii.  376,)  maintains 
the  claims  of  Kefr  Kenna,  affirming  that  the  present  name 
of  Kana  el  Jelil  does  not  mean  Cana  of  Galilee,  but  Cana 
the  great,  or  illustrious.  He  also  objects  that  this  village 
is  too  far  from  Nazareth,  and  in  the  wrong  direction,  to 
answer  to  the  narrative."  Stanley  speaks  of  the  claims  of 
the  two  Canas  as  "  being  about  equally  balanced."  Thom- 
son speaks  hesitatingly.  Making  inquiries,  when  in  the 
neighborhood,  of  all  he  met,  where  the  water  was  made 
wine,  "  with  one  consent  they  pointed  to  Kefr  Kenna. 
Some  of  them  knew  of  a  ruin  called  Kanna  on  the  north 
side  of  the  great  plain  of  Buttauf,  but  only  one  had  ever 
heard  of  the  word  ■  Jelil ■  as  a  part  of  the  name,  and  from 
the  hesitancy  with  which  this  one  admitted  it,  I  was  left  in 
doubt  whether  he  did  not  merely  acquiesce  in  it  at  my  sug- 
gestion.    It  is  certain  that  very  few,  even  of  the  Moslems, 

1  So  Winer,  Raumer,  Ritter,  Meyer,  Porter,  Van  de  Velde,  Sepp. 
»  See  Robinson's  Reply,  iii.  108,  note.    Ewald,  Christus,  170,  note,  decides 
against  De  Saulcy. 


SITE   OP  CANA   OF    GALILEE.  151 

know  the  full  name  of  Kana  el  Jelil ;  and  yet  I  think  Dr. 
Robinson  has  about  settled  the  question  in  its  favor."  Os- 
borne says  that  at  Kefr  Kenna  he  inquired  its  name  of  his 
guides  and  Arabs,  who  said  it  was  also  called  Kenna  el 
Jelil.  Also  one  of  the  natives  called  it  Jelil.  He  consid 
ered  it,  however,  a  new  name,  devised  to  preserve  the  char- 
acter of  the  place  as  Cana  of  Galilee. 

This  village  lies  12  or  15  miles  north  of  Nazareth,  on  the 
southern  declivity  of  a  hill  that  overlooks  the  plain  El  But- 
tauf.  According  to  Robinson  :  "  The  situation  is  fine.  It 
was  once  a  considerable  village,  of  well-built  houses,  now 
deserted.  Many  of  the  dwellings  are  in  ruins ;  we  could 
discover  no  traces  of  antiquity."  Thomson  says  that  there 
is  not  now  a  habitable  house  in  the  village,  though  some 
of  them  may  have  been  inhabited  within  the  last  fifty  years. 
There  are  many  ancient  cisterns  about  it,  and  fragments  of 
water-jars  in  abundance,  not,  however,  of  stone,  but  of 
baked  earth.  Not  only  is  the  village  deserted,  but  the 
near  neighborhood  is  so  wild,  that  it  is  the  favorite  hunting 
ground  for  the  inhabitants  of  Kefr  Kenna. 

Kefr  Kenna  lies  4  or  5  miles  north-east  of  Nazareth,  in 
a  small  valley  upon  the  border  of  a  plain.  At  the  entrance 
of  the  village  is  a  fountain  made  out  of  an  ancient  sar- 
cophagus, which  the  inhabitants  show  as  the  fountain  from 
which  the  water-pots  were  filled.  A  Greek  church  is  built 
upon  the  site  of  the  miracle,  but  is  a  modern  structure.  In 
this  church  are  shown  two  enormous  stone  vases,  as  two 
of  the  six  water-pots.  De  Saulcy  maintains  that  they  are 
as  old  as  the  period  at  which  the  miracle  took  place. 
There  are  some  ruins  apparently  ancient,  and  among  them 
is  shown  the  house  of  Simon  the  Cananite. 

The  marriage  festivities  among  the  Jews  usually  con- 
tinued six  or  seven  days,  and  it  is  not  certain  upon  which  of 
these  days  the  miracle  was  wrought,  but  probably  toward 
the  last.     At  their  expiration  Jesus  went  with  His  mother 


152  THE  LIFE   OP  OUR   LORD. 

and  brethren  and  disciples  to  Capernaum.  The  occasion  of 
this  journey  is  not  mentioned  ;  perhaps,  because  invited  by 
Peter  and  Andrew,  who  seem  now  to  have  resided  there. 
Friedlieb  (191)  suggests  that,  as  the  Passover  was  now  not 
distant,  they  might  have  desired  to  join  a  party  of  pilgrims 
going  up  to  the  feast  from  that  city.  The  fact  that  He  did 
not  remain  there  many  days,  is  mentioned  as  indicating  that 
His  public  ministry  had  not  yet  begun.  There  is  no  inti- 
mation that  He  taught,  or  made  any  public  manifestation  of 
Himself  while  at  Capernaum.  Prob*ably  His  time  was  spent 
in  private  intercourse  with  His  disciples.  Lightfoot,  (iii.  44,) 
who  makes  four  months  to  intervene  between  the  temptation 
and  first  Passover,  supposes  Him  to  have  spent  this  inter- 
val in  a  "  perambulation  of  Galilee."  Of  this  there  is  no 
hint  in  the  narrative.  As  the  Passover  drew  nigh,  He 
went  up  to  Jerusalem.  Whether  the  disciples  accompanied 
Him  is  not  stated  ;  but  as  they  would  naturally  attend  the 
feast,  and  as  afterward  they  are  found  with  Him,  (John  ii. 
22,)  we  infer  that  they  did  so. 


Passover,  April  11-18,  780.     a.  d.  27. 

At  this  feast  Jesus  with  a  scourge  drives  out  of  the  John  ii.  14-22. 
temple  the  sellers  of  animals  for  sacrifice,  and  the  money- 
changers.    To  the  Jews,  demanding  His  authority  to  do 
such  things,  He  replies  in  a  parable.    During  the  feast  He  Johnh.  23-25. 
wrought  miracles  which  led  many  to  believe  on  Him.    He  John  iii.  1-21. 
is  visited  at  night  by  Nicodemus,  to  whom  he  explains  the 
nature  of  the  new   birth.     Afterward  He  departs  from  John  iii.  22. 
Jerusalem  into  the  land  of  Judea,  where  He  tarries  with 
His  disciples,  and  they  baptized.  John  iv.  2. 

This  Passover,  according  to  Greswell,  was  on  the  9th 
April.  Priedlieb  makes  it  to  have  been  on  the  11th.  We 
follow  the  latter.  If  the  Lord's  baptism  was,  as  we  have 
supposed,  early  in  January,  between  the  baptism  and  the 


FIEST  PURIFICATION   OP  THE  TEMPLE.  153 

Passover  was  an  interval  of  some  three  months.1  The  ex- 
act length  of  this  interval  depends,  of  course,  upon  the  date 
of  the  baptism.  With  this  Passover  His  public  ministry 
may  properly  be  said  to  begin. 

This  purification  of  the  Temple  is  plainly  a  different  one 
to  that  mentioned  by  the  Synoptists,  (Matt.  xxi.  12-16; 
Mark  xi.  15-19;  Luke  xix.  45-48.)  This  occurred  at  the 
beginning ;  that  at  the  end  of  His  ministry.  The  act,  in  all 
its  essential  outward  features,  must  have  been  the  same ; 
but  its  significance  varied  with  the  time.  As  now  per- 
formed, it  was  a  plain  and  open  avowal  of  His  Divine  au- 
thority, and  a  public  reproof  of  the  wickedness  of  the 
priests  and  rulers,  who  permitted  His  Father's  house  to  be 
made  a  house  of  merchandise.  Nothing  could  have  brought 
Him  more  publicly  before  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  and 
the  multitudes  who  thronged  to  the  feast,  than  this  act ; 
nor  have  shown  more  distinctly  the  nature  and  extent  of 
His  prophetic  claims.  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  jealous  of 
His  Father's  honor,  and  to  whom  it  especially  belonged  to 
see  that  His  courts  were  not  defiled. 

As  the  chief  sacrifice,  that  of  the  Paschal  Lamb,  was 
offered  on  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  it  is  probable  that  this 
purification  took  place  before  or  on  that  day.  Although 
the  act  must  have  drawn  to  Him  popular  attention,  and 
awakened  general  inquiry  who  He  was,  no  hostile  measures 
seem  to  have  been  taken  at  this  time  by  the  Jewish  author- 
ities. They  asked  for  a  sign  (v.  18)  as  a  voucher  for  His 
Divine  commission,  which  He  declined  to  give,  and  an- 
swered them  in  an  enigmatical  manner.  Still  He  wrought 
afterward,  during  the  feast,  miracles  which  caused  many 
to  believe  in  Him.  But  their  faith  resting  merely  upon  the 
exhibitions  of  power  which  they  saw,  not  upon  any  percep- 
tions of  the  moral  character  of  His  works,  He  did  not  com- 

»  Paachale  Chronicon,  76  days;  Friedlieb,  87  days ;  Greswell,  64  days. 
7* 


154  THB  LIFE  OF   OUE  LORD. 

mit  Himself  to  them,  or  enter  into  any  intimate  relations 
with  them,  as  with  His  disciples  from  Galilee.  But  in 
Nicodemus,  whom  Lightfoot  calls  "  one  of  the  judges  of 
the  great  Sanhedrim,"  He  found  one  in  whom  were  the 
germs  of  a  true  faith,  and  to  whom  He  could  reveal  Him- 
self, not  only  through  work,  but  through  word.  That 
Nicodemus  should  come  secretly  by  night,  shows  that  there 
was,  even  now,  among  the  priests  and  rulers  with  whom  he 
had  most  intercourse,  a  feeling  of  dislike  to  Jesus,  and  that 
some  degree  of  odium  attached  to  all  who  were  known  to 
visit  Him. 

After  the  feast  was  over,  Jesus,  leaving  the  city,  went 
into  some  part  of  the  territory  adjacent,  or  into  the  province 
of  Judea,  as  distinguished  from  its  chief  city.  The  part  of  the 
land  to  which  He  went  is  not  mentioned,  but  we  may  infer 
that,  as  His  purpose  was  to  baptize,  He  went  to  the  Jordan, 
or  to  some  one  of  the  streams  running  into  it.  Sepp  (ii. 
100)  supposes  Him  to  have  gone  from  place  to  place  in  south- 
ern Judea,  baptizing  at  all  the  principal  fountains,  which 
He  could  do,  as  His  baptism  was  by  sprinkling,  as  that  of 
John  was  by  immersion.  This  is  pure  conjecture.  Perhaps 
we  may  infer  from  John,  (iv.  4,)  "  And  He  must  needs  go 
through  Samaria,"  that  He  was  at  this  time  in  the  northern 
part  of  Judea.1  That  He  began  the  work  of  baptizing  by 
His  disciples  soon  after  the  feast,  and  before  He  returned 
to  Galilee,  seems  fairly  inferable  from  the  narrative.  It 
has,  however,  been  said 2  that  a  considerable  interval  (from 
April  to  October)  elapsed,  during  which  the  Lord  and  His 
disciples  returned  to  Galilee,  and  lived  in  retirement,  en- 
gaged in  their  usual  pursuits.  In  support  of  this  it  is 
claimed  that  the  baptismal  activity  of  Jesus  must  have  been 
very  brief,  since  the  Baptist's  disciples  speak  of  it  as  recent, 
(John  iii.  26,)  and  it  was  given  up  so  soon  as  His  work 

1  See  Meyer  in  loco.  »  Lichtenstein,  157. 


JESUS   BAPTIZING   IN  JUDEA.  155 

began  to  awaken  the  jealousy  of  the  Pharisees,  (John  iv. 
1-3.)  Supposing  that  the  Lord  left  Judea,  upon  grounds 
to  be  hereafter  stated,  in  November  or  December,  He 
must  have  been  there  about  six  months.  We  cannot 
certainly  determine  whether  He  was  so  long  actually 
engaged  in  the  work  of  baptizing.  Greswell  makes  the 
time  so  spent  to  have  been  less  than  a  month  ;  Norton  only 
two  or  three  weeks.  But  we  need  not  suppose  Him  to  have 
commenced  immediately  after  the  Passover,  though  we 
have  no  data  to  determine  the  exact  time.  Nor  can  we 
tell  when  John  left  the  Jordan  and  began  to  baptize  at 
-/Enon,  (v.  23.) '  That  Jesus  had  been  for  some  time  car- 
rying on  His  work  before  the  complaint  made  by  John's 
disciples,  (v.  26,)  appears  from  the  great  numbers  that 
thronged  to  His  baptism. 

We  see,  then,  no  good  grounds  for  believing  that  Jesus 
after  the  Passover  went  into  Galilee,  and  returning  after 
some  months,  began  to  baptize.  Yet  we  may,  on  the  other 
hand,  admit  that  His  baptismal  work  was  not  of  very  long 
duration.  There  is  nothing  in  the  note  of  time,  (v.  22,) 
u  after  these  things,"  fi€ra  ravTo,  that  forbids  us  to  suppose 
that  a  few  weeks  may  have  elapsed  between  the  feast  and 
the  beginning  of  this  work.1 

Whilst  Jesus  was  baptizing,  John  was  also  prosecuting 
his  work.  He  had,  however,  left  the  Jordan  and  gone  to 
^Enon,  (v.  23.)  The  site  of  this  place  is  not  known.  The 
Evangelist  speaks  of  it  as  near  to  Salim,  and  gives  as  the 
reason  of  its  selection  that  there  was  "  much  water,"  or 
"  many  fountains,"  v&Wa  TroXXa,  there.  The  word  ^non 
means  fountains,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  denotes  here, 

1  See  Greswell,  ii.  215,  who  thinks  the  statement  that  there  was  much 
water  there,  "  a  proof  that  the  rainy  season  had  been  some  time  over,  and 
water  was  beginning  to  be  scarce,"  and  thus  showing  that  it  was  near  mid- 
summer.   Little  reliance  can  be  placed  on  this. 

*  Compare  the  parallel  expressions,  John  v.  1 ;  vi.  1 ;  vii.  1.  "  The  se- 
quence is  not  immediate,"  Ali'ord  in  loco. 


156  THE  LITE   OF   OUB  LORD. 

a  village,  or  fountains  near  a  village.  The  latter  seems 
most  likely,  as  its  position  is  defined  by  saying  that  it  was 
near  to  Salim,  "  Baptizing  near  the  waters  of  deep-waved 
Salim." '  But  the  position  of  this  Salim  is  also  undeter- 
mined. Jerome  speaks  of  a  town  called  in  his  day  Salem, 
not  far  from  Scythopolis,  where  the  ruins  of  a  palace  of 
Melchizedek  were  shown.  He  speaks  also  of  a  Salumias, 
which  he  apparently  identifies  with  Salem,  as  lying  in  the 
plain  or  valley  of  the  Jordan,  eight  miles  south  of  Scythop- 
olis. He  places  ^Enon  in  the  same  locality,  near  Salem  and 
the  Jordan.9  Here  it  is  now  placed  by  Van  de  Velde,  at 
the  base  of  Tell  Ridghah,  where  there  are  some  ruins  and 
a  spring.'  If  this  be  correct,  .*Enon  would  have  been  with- 
in the  bounds  of  Samaria.  But  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that 
John,  the  preacher  of  the  Law,  could  have  entered  Sama- 
ria to  baptize,  when,  at  a  later  period,  the  Lord  forbade  the 
Twelve  to  preach  in  any  of  its  cities,  (Matt.  x.  5.)  Nor  is 
there  any  trace,  in  the  conversation  of  the  Samaritans  with 
Jesus,  of  any  such  ministry  of  the  Baptist  among  them,  (see 
John  iv.  9.)  Salim  and  ^Enon  have  therefore  been  looked 
for  in  other  directions.  Some,  as  Wieseler,  have  found 
them  in  the  wilderness  of  Judah,  referring  to  Josh.  xv.  32, 
where  a  city  Ain  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  Shilhim. 
Lichtenstein  (160)  finds  an  ^Enon  in  Wady  el  Khulil,  a  little 
west  of  Hebron.  Sepp,  in  Beit  Ainun,  north  of  Hebron. 
Barclay  (558)  thinks  he  finds  it  in  certain  fountains  in  Wady 
Farah,  six  miles  north-east  from  Jerusalem,  of  which  he 
speaks  as  of  all  the  fountains  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jeru- 
salem, by  far  the  most  copious  and  interesting.  One  is  ca- 
pable of  driving  several  mills  as  it  gushes  forth  from  the 
earth,  but  is  intermittent.  The  Wady  in  which  they  lie  he 
heard  also  called  Salim,  and  his  guide  conducted  him  to 
the  site  of  an  ancient  city  near  by.     Below,  the  stream  is 

i  Nonnus  in  Lightfoot,  x.  337.  *  Raumer,  142 ;  Robinson,  iii.  833. 

8  Memoir,  345 ;  so  Ellicott. 


THE   SITE   OF   ^BNON.  157 

called  the  Kelt,  and  is  generally  supposed  to  be  "  the  brook 
Cherith  that  is  before  Jordan,"  (1  Kings  xvii.  1-7.)  In  his 
second  journey,  Robinson  (iii.  298)  made  special  search  for 
Salim  in  the  Jordan  valley,  but  could  find  no  ruins,  nor 
trace  of  the  name.  He  mentions,  however,  a  plain  of  Salim 
east  of  Nablous,  and  a  small  village  of  the  same  name, 
which  was  "  said  to  have  two  sources  of  living  water,  one 
in  a  cavern,  and  the  other  a  running  fountain."  Many,  as 
Greswell,  follow  Jerome. 

Among  so  many  discordant  opinions,  the  true  site  of 
Muon  must  be  left  undecided.  Most  agree  in  placing  it  on 
the  west  side  of  the  Jordan,  as  it  is  contrasted  (v.  26)  with 
John's  former  place  of  baptism  at  Bethabara.  That  he 
should  have  gone  so  far  from  the  earlier  scene  of  his  labors 
as  the  south  of  Judea,  is  improbable.  We  best  meet  the 
scope  of  the  narrative  if  we  suppose  that  Jesus  and  John 
were  not  very  far  distant  from  each  other,  and  both  in  the 
region  of  the  Jordan.  Some  have  supposed  a  contrast  to  be 
drawn  between  "  the  land  of  Judea,"  and  u  ^Enon,"  (vs.  22. 
and  23,)  as  if  the  latter  was  not  in  the  former.'  But  the  con- 
trast was  not  between  the  place  of  John's  ministry  and  that 
oi  Jesus,  but  between  the  labors  of  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  and 
His  labors  in  the  country.  That  John  was  not  immediately 
upon  the  Jordan  is  rightly  to  be  inferred  from  the  state- 
ment that  there  was  much  water  there,  a  statement  super- 
fluous if  he  had  been  on  the  banks  of  that  river. 

In  the  act  of  baptizing  Jesus  personally  took  no  part. 
It  was  done  by  His  disciples.  The  names  of  these  disciples 
are  not  mentioned,  but  they  were  doubtless  the  same  whose 
names  had  been  already  mentioned,  (John  ch.  i.,)  and  who 
came  with  Him  to  the  Passover  from  Galilee.  As  the 
former  disciples  of  John,  and  perhaps  his  assistants,  this 
rite  was  not  new  to  them.  Having  also  been  for  some  time 
in  company  with  Jesus,  they  were  prepared  by  His  teach- 

»  So  Winer,  i.  84 


158  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD. 

ings  to  understand  the  meaning  of  the  service  He  required 
from  them.  As  yet,  however,  their  relations  to  Him  were 
much  the  same,  as  their  former  relations  to  John,  and  very 
unlike  what  they  afterward  became.1 

These  contemporaneous  baptismal  labors  of  the  Lord 
and  of  John  present  many  interesting  questions,  but  most  of 
them  lie  out  of  the  pale  of  our  inquiry.  As  the  former  did 
not  Himself  baptize,  it  is  a  question  how  His  time  was 
spent.  Probably  He  taught  the  crowds  that  came  to  His 
baptism,  but  there  is  no  hint  that  He  healed  the  sick,  or 
wrought  any  miracles.  We  can  scarce  doubt  that  He  went 
up  to  Jerusalem  to  attend  the  two  great  feasts  during  this 
period,  that  of  Pentecost  and  of  Tabernacles,  and  here  He 
must  have  come  more  or  less  into  contact  with  the  priests 
and  Pharisees.  It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  He  went 
about  from  place  to  place  to  teach,  or  that  He  taught  in 
any  of  the  synagogues.  Still  it  is  not  improbable  that  be- 
fore He  began  to  baptize,  or  at  intervals  during  His  labors, 
He  may  have  visited  many  parts  of  Judea,  and  have  noted 
and  tested  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  people.  It  may 
be,  also,  that  at  this  time  He  formed  those  friendships  of 
which  we  later  find  traces,  as  that  with  Joseph  of  Arima- 
thea,  and  that  with  Mary  and  Martha. 


Dec,  780— March,  781.     a.  d.  27-28. 

The  Pharisees  sowing  dissensions  between  the  disciples  John  iii.  25,  26. 
of  John  and  those  of  Jesus,  the  latter  gives  up  His  work  John  iv.  1-3. 
of  baptizing  and  goes  back  to  Galilee.     The  Baptist,  in  re-  John  iii.  27-36. 
ply  to  the  complaints  of  his  disciples,  bears  a  fresh  testi- 
mony to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.     Jesus  takes  His  way  to  John  iv.  4-42. 
Galilee,  through  Samaria,  and  abides  there  two  days  teach- 
ing, and  many  believed  on  Him.     Upon  reaching  Galilee 
His  disciples  depart  to  their  respective  homes.     He  is  re-  John  iv.  43-45 

1  See  Greswell,  ii.  2S4. 


BELATIONS   OF  CHRIST'S   BAPTISM   TO  THAT   OP  JOHN.       159 

ceived  with  honor  by  the  Galileans,  because  of  the  works 
which  He  did  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feast     Coming  to  Cana,  John  iv.  46-54. 
He  heals  the  nobleman's  son  at  Capernaum.     He  after- 
ward lives  in  retirement  till  called  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem 
at  the  following  feast  John  t.  1. 

Before  entering  npon  the  examination  of  the  several 
points  which  this  section  presents,  it  will  be  well  to  take  a 
brief  preliminary  survey  of  the  several  stages  of  John's 
ministry,  and  their  relations  to  corresponding  stages  in  the 
Lord's  work. 

The  first  labor  of  the  Baptist  was  to  announce  the  near 
approach  of  the  Messiah,  and  through  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance to  prepare  His  way.  He  demanded  of  the  people 
that  they  should  believe  in  Him  that  should  come  after 
him,  and  who  should  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  (Acts 
xix.  4.)  When,  after  a  considerable  time  thus  spent,  and 
multitudes  from  all  parts  of  the  land  had  been  baptized, 
Jesus  appeared  and  was  recognized  by  him  as  the  Messiah, 
his  ministry  necessarily  took  a  new  form.  He  could  no 
longer  testify  to  his  auditors  of  one  to  come,  but  must 
point  out  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  already  come.  This  he  did, 
when,  in  the  presence  of  his  disciples  and  of  the  people,  he 
pointed  to  Jesus  as  the  Lamb  of  God.  This  witness  to  the 
personal  Christ  was  the  culminating  point  of  his  work.  It 
was  now  a  question  for  the  Jews,  how  they  would  receive 
and  treat  Him  to  whom  he  had  thus  borne  witness.  Jesus 
henceforth  became  the  chief  figure  on  the  stage,  and  John 
sank  to  the  position  of  a  subordinate. 

With  the  coming  of  Jesus  it  might  have  been  supposed 
tliut  the  mission  of  the  Baptist  would  cease,  its  end  being 
accomplished.  As  we  have  seen,  however,  it  did  not  whol- 
ly cease,  but  it  changed  its  form.  And  it  is  probably  from 
this  point  of  view  that  we  are  to  explain  the  departure  of 
John  from  the  Jordan  to  iEnon.  And  as  the  place  of  bap- 
tism was  changed,  so  also  in  some  degree  the  rite.    His 


160  THE  LIFE  OF   OUE   LORD. 

baptism  could  no  more  have  a  general  and  indefinite  refer- 
ence to  one  still  to  come.  Having  declared  Jesus  of  Naz- 
areth to  be  the  Messiah,  the  undefined  Messianic  hopes  of 
the  nation  were  now  to  be  concentrated  upon  Him.  All 
the  teachings  and  labors  of  the  Baptist  pointed  to  Him, 
and  all  tended  to  prepare  the  people  to  receive  Him. 
Whether  there  was  any  change  in  the  baptismal  formula 
may  be  doubted,  but  the  immediate  and  personal  reference 
to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  was  that  which  distinctively  char- 
acterized the  last  stage  of  John's  work. 

To  this  form  of  John's  ministry  the  ministry  of  Jesus, 
at  its  beginning,  corresponded.  The  former  had  borne  his 
witness  to  Him,  and  He  must  now  confirm  that  witness ; 
must  show  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah  through  His  own 
words  and  acts.  This  He  does.  He  gathers  a  small  body 
of  disciples,  to  whom  He  manifests  His  glory  through  the 
miracle  at  the  marriage  in  Gana.  Afterward,  before  the 
priests  and  the  people,  He  asserts  His  Messianic  claims  by 
the  purifying  of  the  temple,  and  the  miracles  He  subse- 
quently wrought  at  the  feast.  But  why  should  He  estab- 
lish, or  rather  continue  the  rite  of  baptism  ?  In  what  re- 
lation did  this  rite  stand  to  His  Messianic  character  ?  The 
answer  to  this  question  may  be  found  in  its  nature  as  the 
baptism  of  repentance.  It  was  an  indispensable  condition 
to  the  reception  of  the  Christ,  the  Holy  One  of  God,  that 
sin  should  be  repented  of  and  put  away.  Upon  this  John 
had  insisted  in  his  preaching,  "  Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  at  hand."  But  this  preaching,  and  this  rite,  both 
pointing  to  repentance,  were  no  less  important  now  that 
the  Messiah  had  actually  come.  Without  holiness  of  heart 
they  could  not  receive  Him,  could  not  even  discern  Him 
as  the  Messiah.  John  had  already  baptized  many  into  the 
hope  of  His  coming,  but  others  had  equal  need  to  be  bap- 
tized into  the  reality  of  it. 

We  can  now  see  why  John  should  have  continued  bap- 


RELATIONS   OF   CHBJST'S   BAPTISM  TO  THAT   OP  JOHN.      161 

tizing  after  the  Lord  came,  and  why  Jesus  should  Himself, 
through  His  disciples,  adopt  the  rite.  It  was  not  enough 
that  He  had  personally  come.  Would  the  Jews  receive 
Him  ?  None  could  do  so  but  the  repentant.  All  those 
that ,  with  hearts  conscious  of  guilt,  both  personal  and  na- 
tional, and  truly  penitent,  were  waiting  for  the  consolation 
of  Israel,  were  willing  to  be  baptized,  confessing  their  sins; 
but  the  unrepentant,  the  unbelieving,  the  self-righteous,  all 
who  justified  themselves,  rejected  the  rite,  (Luke  vii.  29, 
30.)  Hence  it  was  a  most  decisive  test  of  the  spiritual  state 
of  the  people.  And  tried  by  this  test,  the  nation,  as  such, 
was  condemned.  Neither  the  baptism  of  John,  nor  that  of 
the  Lord,  brought  it  to  repentance.  True,  great  numbers 
went  at  first  to  John,  and  afterward  many  resorted  to  Jesus, 
and  were  baptized ;  but  these  were  the  common  people, 
those  without  reputation  or  authority.  Those  who  ruled 
in  all  religious  matters  and  gave  direction  to  public  opinion, 
the  priests,  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  the  Sadducees,  and 
the  rich  and  influential,  held  themselves  almost  wholly  aloof. 
Hence,  as  regarded  the  nation  at  large,  the  baptismal  work 
failed  of  its  end.  The  true  and  divinely-appointed  repre* 
sentatives  of  the  people,  the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  who 
sat  in  Moses*  seat,  were  not  brought  to  repentance,  and 
therefore  could  not  receive  the  Messiah. 

Thus  Jesus  began  His  work  as  the  Baptizer  with  water 
unto  repentance.  It  was  this  baptism  that  gave  to  His 
Judean  ministry  its  distinctive  character.  It  was  an  at- 
tempt to  bring  the  nation,  as  headed  up  in  its  ecclesiastical 
rulers,  to  repentance.  Had  these  come  to  Him,  or  to  John, 
confessing  their  sins,  His  way  would  have  been  prepared, 
and  He  could  then  have  proceeded  to  teach  them  the  true 
nature  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  and  prepared  them  for  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  as  they  had  "frustrated 
the  counsel  of  God  within  themselves,  being  not  baptized 
of  John,"  so  they  continued  to  frustrate  it  by  rejecting  the 


162  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LOED. 

baptism  of  Jesus.  To  continue,  therefore,  to  baptize  was 
to  expose  God's  ordinance  to  contempt,  and  discontinuing 
His  labors  in  Judea,  He  retired  into  Galilee.  How  long 
after  this  John  continued  to  baptize,  we  are  not  told.  He 
must  have  felt  that,  as  regarded  the  rulers  and  the  body 
of  the  people,  little  could  be  done,  (John  i.  19-25  ;  and  iii. 
32  ;)  and  perhaps  he  may  now  have  gone  from  place  to 
place,  seeking  out  and  baptizing  all  who  had  humility  to 
confess  their  sins,  and  faith  to  receive  his  witness.  Not 
improbably,  as  the  novelty  of  his  first  appearance  was  over, 
his  popularity  was  already  on  the  wane,  although  the  people 
at  large  continued  to  hold  him  in  high  esteem  as  a  teacher 
and  prophet. 

Many  have  placed  the  imprisonment  of  John  by  Herod 
(Matt.  iv.  12  ;  Mark  i.  14  ;  Luke  iii.  19  and  20)  just  before 
this  departure  of  Jesus  into  Galilee,  and  regard  the  latter 
as  determined  by  the  former.  But  for  this  there  are  no 
sufficient  grounds.  There  is  nothing  in  the  language  of  the 
fourth  Evangelist  that  implies  this  ;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
a  fair  construction  of  his  words  (iv.  1)  shows  that  John  was 
yet  baptizing  when  Jesus  left  Judea.  "  When,  therefore, 
the  Lord  knew  how  the  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus 
made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John — He  left  Ju- 
dea." Translated  more  strictly,  it  would  read,  "  that  Jesus 
is  making  and  baptizing  more  disciples  than  John."  This 
plainly  implies  comparison  between  the  two,  and  therefore 
their  contemporaneous  activity.  Both  are  making  and  bap- 
tizing disciples,  but  more  come  to  Jesus  than  to  John.1 
There  is,  beside,  no  allusion  to  Herod,  or  intimation  that 
the  Baptist's  labors  were  now  suspended  because  of  his 
imprisonment.  Nor,  unfriendly  as  the  Pharisees  doubtless 
were  to  him,  is  there  mention  anywhere  made  of  any  overt 
acts  of  hostility  against  him.     They  were  satisfied  with  de- 

»  So  Greswell,  ii.  212 ;  Wieseler,  161. 


JESUS   CEASES  TO   BAPTIZE.  163 

nying  his  authority  to  baptize,  for  his  reputation  was  too 
high  among  the  people  to  permit  them  to  take  any  active 
steps  against  him.  His  imprisonment  was  not  their 
act,  nor  do  they  seem  to  have  had  any  part  in  it,  (Matt, 
xiv.  3.) 

But  if  John  was  not  now  imprisoned,  why  did  Jesus 
now  cease  baptizing  and  retire  into  Galilee  ?  Some  ascribe 
this  to  His  fear  of  the  Pharisees.1  But  there  is  no  proof 
that  this  party  was  ready  at  this  early  period  to  hinder 
Him  in  His  work  by  any  active  opposition,  much  less  that 
His  life  and  personal  safety  were  endangered.  When 
a  few  months  afterward  they  sought  to  slay  Him,  because 
by  healing  on  the  Sabbath  He  had,  as  they  said,  broken 
the  Law  of  God,  (John  v.  16,)  there  was  a  plausible  reason 
for  their  hostility  ;  but  this  did  not  now  exist.  Others,  on 
better  grounds,  ascribe  this  departure  to  the  fact  that  the 
Pharisees  were  availing  themselves  of  the  jealousy  of  John's 
disciples  to  the  injury  of  Jesus.'  It  appears  from  John  iii. 
25-27,  that  there  was  a  dispute  between  the  disciples  of 
John  and  the  Jews,  or  a  Jew,  respecting  purification.  This 
may  have  had  reference  to  the  nature  of  baptism  as  a  puri- 
fying rite ;  to  the  authority  of  John  to  administer  it ;  or, 
more  probably,  to  the  respective  values  of  the  baptisms  of 
John  and  Jesus.  That  the  baptismal  work  of  the  latter 
gave  umbrage  to  John's  disciples,  upon  some  ground,  is  ap- 
parent ;  for  they  complain  to  their  master  that  Ho  was  bap- 
tizing, and  that  all  the  people  were  thronging  to  Him. 
They  seem  to  have  considered  this  act  on  His  part  as  one 
that  needed  explanation,  perhaps  as  an  interference  with 
John  in  .his  peculiar  work,  or  as  unsuitable  to  His  Messianic 
character. 

If,  however,  we  admit  that  the  Pharisees  did  attempt 
to  arouse  the  jealousy  of  John's  disciples  to  the  injury  of 

»  So  Greswell,  Alford,  Meyer. 

*  So  Lichtenstein,  162;   Luthurdt,  i.  891, 


164  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

the  work  in  which  he  and  Jesus  were  jointly  engaged,  this 
alone  does  not  explain  why  the  latter  should  have  ceased 
to  baptize.  The  true  reason  has  been  already  intimated. 
The  increasing  popularity  of  Jesus,  as  shown  by  the  num- 
bers that  came  to  His  baptism,  only  brought  out  more 
strongly  the  envy  and  dislike  of  the  Pharisees,  and  con- 
firmed them  in  their  hostility.  To  have  continued  His 
work  could,  therefore,  have  answered  no  good  end,  since 
it  was  not  now  the  gathering  of  a  body  of  disciples  around 
Him  at  which  He  aimed,  but  the  repentance  of  the  priests 
and  leaders  of  the  people.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that 
He  now  left  Judea  because  the  moral  conditions  for 
the  successful  prosecution  of  His  baptismal  labors  were 
wanting. 

The  only  datum  we  have  by  which  to  determine  the 
time  of  the  year  when  Jesus  went  into  Galilee,  is  found  in 
His  words  to  His  disciples  when  seated  by  the  well  in 
Sychar  :  "  Say  not  ye  there  are  yet  four  months  and  then 
cometh  harvest?  behold  I  say  unto  you,"  <fec,  (John  iv. 
35.)  Some,  however,  deny  that  this  reference  to  the  har- 
vest, as  yet  four  months  distant,  is  of  any  chronological 
value,  because  the  expression  is  a  proverbial  one,  based 
upon  the  fact  that  there  is  an  average  interval  of  four 
months  between  the  sowing  and  harvesting.1  But  the  form 
of  the  expression  seems  to  forbid  that  we  regard  it  as  a 
proverb,  "  Say  not  ye  there  are  yet  four  months,"  &c. ; 
here  "  yet,"  en,  obviously  refers  to  the  time  when  the 
words  were  spoken.  From  this  time,  not  from  the  time 
of  sowing,  are  four  months,  and  then  the  harvest.8  We 
are  then  to  determine  the  time  of  the  harvest,  and  counting 
backward  four  months,  reach  the  time  when  the  words  were 
spoken.  Upon  the  16th  Nisan,  a  sheaf  of  the  first  fruits  of 
the  harvest  was  to  be  waved  before  the  Lord  in  the  Temple. 

i  Norton,  Krafft,  Greswell,  Alford. 

>  Lightfoot,  Baronius,  Lichtenstein,  Wieseler,  Stier,  Meyer,  Robinson. 


JESUS   IN   SAMARIA.  165 

Till  this  was  done,  no  one  might  lawfully  gather  his  grain.1 
From  this  legal  commencement  of  the  harvest  about  the 
first  of  April,  we  obtain  the  month  of  December  as  that  in 
which  the  words  were  spoken.*  Tholuck  (in  loco)  regards 
the  expression  as  proverbial,  yet  reaches  nearly  the  same 
result.  "  As  our  Lord  points  them  to  the  fields,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  it  was  just  then  seed-time,  and  we  are  thus 
furnished  with  the  date,  to  wit,  that  Jesus  had  remained  in 
Judea  from  April,  when  the  Passover  occurred,  till  No- 
vember." ' 

A  very  different  result  is  reached  by  some,  who  take 
the  Lord's  words :  "  Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look  on  the 
fields ;  for  they  are  white  already  to  the  harvest,"  as  not 
figurative,  but  literal,  and  expressive  of  an  actual  fact. 
The  harvest,  then,  was  not  four  months  distant,  but  just 
at  hand.  Upon  this  ground  Greswell  (ii.  229)  decides  "  that 
the  time  of  the  journey  coincided  with  the  acme  of  wheat 
harvest,  or  was  but  a  little  before  it,"  and  puts  it  two  or 
three  weeks  before  Pentecost,  or  about  the  middle  of  May.4 

The  direct  route  from  Judea  to  Nazareth  led  through 
Samaria  by  Sichem,  and  was  generally  taken  by  the  com- 
panies attending  the  feasts  from  Galilee,  although  the  en- 
mity of  the  Samaritans  to  the  Jews  seems  especially  to  have 
manifested  itself  on  such  occasions.*  Josephus  says  *  that 
it  was  necessary  for  those  that  would  travel  quickly  to 
take  that  route,  as  by  it  Jerusalem  could  be  reached  in 
three  days  from  Galilee.  Sychar  is  regarded  by  many 
as  another  reading  for  Sychem,  (Acts  vii.  16,)  which 
stood  upon  the  site  of  the  present  Neapolis,  or  Nablous, 

1  Levit.  xxiii.  10,  Ac. ;  Deut  xvi.  9,  Ac. ;  Josephus,  Antiq.,  8.  10.  5. 

*  Lightfoot,  Lichtenstein,  Meyer,  Ellicott. 

'  A.  Clarke  and  Stier,  putting  the  harvest  in  May,  make  the  departure  to 
have  been  in  January.    Stanley,  in  January  or  February. 

*  So Townsend  in  loco,  "The  Messiah,"  101.  Alford  regards  all  chrono- 
logical inferences  built  on  this  passage,  as  unwarranted. 

*  Josephus,  Antiq.,  20.  6.  1.  «  Life,  52. 


166  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LORD. 

and  is  often  mentioned  in  biblical  history.1  For  a  time  after 
the  return  from  the  captivity,  Samaria  (1  Kings  xvi.  24) 
was  the  chief  city,  but  Sichem  soon  gained  the  ascendency. 
The  change  from  Sichem  to  Sychar  is  supposed  to  mark 
the  contempt  of  the  Jews  toward  the  Sichemites,  the  latter 
word  meaning  the  "  toper  city,"  or  the  "  heathen  city." 
Alexander  calls  it  "  a  later  Aramaic  form."  It  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  this  change  was  made  by  John  in  his  narra- 
tive to  express  his  own  dislike,  or  that,  as  said  by  Stier,  "  it 
was  an  intentional  intimation  of  the  relation  and  position 
of  things  between  Judea  and  Samaria."  Unless  the  name 
Sychar  was  in  common  use,  we  can  scarce  suppose  him  to 
have  employed  it ;  for,  in  a  simple  historical  statement,  the 
intentional  use  of  any  mock  name  or  opprobrious  epithet 
would  be  out  of  keeping. 

Some  make  Sychar  a  village  near  Sichem,  but  distinct 
from  it.a  This  was  the  early  opinion.  They  were  distin- 
guished by  Eusebius,  and  in  the  Jerusalem  Itinerarium.' 
Raumer  supposes  that  the  village  of  Sichem  was  a  long 
straggling  one,  and  that  the  east  end  of  it,  near  Jacob's  well, 
was  called  Sychar.  There  is  now  a  village  near  the  well 
called  El  Askar,  which  some  have  supposed  to  be  Sychar. 
Thomson  (ii.  206)  says :  "  This  is  so  like  John's  Sychar  that 
I  feel  inclined  to  adopt  it."  * 

Jacob's  well,  where  Jesus  was  resting  Himself  when  He 
met  the  Samaritan  woman,  "  is  on  the  end  of  a  low  spur 
or  swell  running  out  from  the  north-eastern  base  of  Gerizim ; 
and  is  still  15  or  20  feet  above  the  level  of  the  plain  below."* 
It  is  dug  in  the  solid  rock  to  the  depth  of  75  or  80  feet,  and 
is  about  9  feet  in  diameter,  and  the  sides  hewn  smooth  and 
regular,  and  perfectly  round.8     The  quantity  of  water  in  it 

1  So  Meyer,  Weiseler,  Raumer,  Robinson,  Ritter,  Alford. 
8  Hug,  Lutbardt,  Lichtenstein.  »  See  Raumer,  146,  note. 

4  See  contra  Robinson,  iii.  133  ;   see  also  Wieseler,  256,  note. 
»  Robinson,  iii.  132.  •  Porter. 


THE   WELL   OF  JACOB.  167 

greatly  varies.  Maundrell  found  it  5  yards  in  depth.  Some- 
times it  is  nearly  or  wholly  dry.  Dr.  Wilson  (1842)  found 
so  little  water  in  it,  that  a  servant,  whom  he  let  down  to 
the  bottom,  was  able,  by  means  of  dry  sticks  thrown  to 
him,  to  kindle  a  blaze  which  distinctly  showed  the  whole 
of  the  well  from  the  top  to  the  bottom.  Osborne1  says : 
"  There  was  no  water  at  the  time  of  our  visit,  near  the 
close  of  December."  "  Formerly  there  was  a  square  hole 
opening  into  a  carefully-built  vaulted  chamber,  about  10 
feet  square,  in  the  floor  of  which  was  the  true  mouth  of  the 
well.  Now  a  portion  of  the  vault  has  fallen  in,  and  com- 
pletely covered  up  the  mouth,  so  that  nothing  can  be  seen 
but  a  shallow  pit  half  filled  with  stones  and  rubbish." "  A 
church  was  built  near  this  spot,  of  which  few  traces 
remain. 

It  has  been  much  questioned  why  a  well  should  have 
been  dug  here,  since  there  are  several  springs  within  a  little 
distance  giving  an  abundance  of  water.  Some  suppose 
that  earthquakes  may  have  caused  the  springs  to  flow  since 
the  well  was  dug.  More  probable  is  the  supposition  that 
Jacob  found  the  springs  in  the  possession  of  others,  who 
were  unwilling  to  share  the  water  with  him,  and  therefore, 
as  matter  of  necessity,  he  must  obtain  it  from  a  well.  Why 
the  woman  should  have  come  to  this  well  to  draw  water, 
which  was  so  much  more  easily  attainable  near  by,  cannot 
now  be  explained.  If  the  city  itself  was  at  some  distance, 
and  the  language  seems  to  imply  this,  (vs.  8,  28-30,)  she 
may  have  lived  in  the  suburbs,  for  it  is  not  said  that 
she  resided  in  the  city ;  but  if  she  did  so,  she  may  have 
had  special  reasons  for  wishing  the  water  of  this  well,  be- 
cause of  its  coolness  or  other  qualities ;  or  as  especially 
valuable  because  of  its  association  with  Jacob.  Porter 
(ii.  342)  speaks  of  those  at  Damascus,  who  send  to  a  par- 

i  Palestine.  835.  •  Porter,  ii.  84a 


168  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

ticular  fountain  a  mile  or  more  distant  from  their  homes, 
although  water  is  everywhere  very  abundant. 

It  was  about  the  sixth  hour  that  Jesus  sat  on  the  well. 
This,  according  to  Jewish  reckoning,  would  be  12  m.  or 
noon ;  if  reckoned  according  to  Roman  computation,  6 
p.  m.,  or  as  some  say,1  6  a.  m.  Ebrard  (296)  contends 
that  John  always  uses  the  Roman  computation,  and  prefers 
the  evening  here,  on  the  grounds  that  the  noonday  was  an 
unfit  time  to  travel,  and  that  wells  were  usually  visited  for 
water  at  evening.  But  if  we  remember  that  this  was  in 
December,  travelling  at  mid-day  will  not  appear  strange. 
Noon  was  not  indeed  the  time  for  general  resort  to  the 
well,  but  such  resort  must  be  determined  in  particular 
cases  by  individual  need  ;  and  that  the  woman  was  alone, 
and  held  so  long  a  private  conversation  uninterrupted, 
shows  that  it  was  an  hour  when  the  well  was  not  generally 
visited.  There  seems,  then,  no  reason  to  depart  from  the 
common  opinion  that  it  was  about  noon.  At  this  hour  the 
Jews  were  accustomed  to  take  their  principal  meal.*. 

The  reception  which  the  Lord  met  with  among  the  Sa- 
maritans was  in  striking  contrast  with  His  reception  in 
Judea ;  yet  among  the  former  He  seems  to  have  wrought 
no  miracles,  and  to  have  been  received  because  the  truth 
He  taught  was  the  convincing  proof  of  His  Messianic  char- 
acter. 

Arriving  in  Galilee,  Jesus  was  honorably  received  by 
the  Galileans,  for  they  had  been  at  the  Passover,  and  had 
"seen  all  the  things  that  He  did  at  Jerusalem  at  the 
feast,"  (John  iv.  43-45.)  But  in  face  of  this  honorable  re- 
ception, how  are  His  words  (v.  44)  to  be  understood,  "that 
a  prophet  hath  no  honor  in  his  own  country,"  and  which 
are  apparently  cited  as  explaining  why  He  went  into  Galilee. 
There  are  several  interpretations :  1.  Galilee  is  to  be  taken 

1  Greswell,  ii.  216  ;  McKnight.  »  Winer,  iL  47. 


SECOND  VISIT  AT  CANA.  169 

in  opposition  to  Nazareth.  In  this  city,  His  own  country, 
Jesus  had  no  honor,  but  elsewhere  in  Galilee  He  was  re- 
ceived as  a  prophet.1  2.  Galilee  is  to  be  taken  in  opposi- 
tion to  Judea.  Judea  was  His  birthplace,  and  so  His  own 
country,  and  it  was  also  the  land  of  the  prophets;  but 
there  He  had  found  no  reception,  and  had  been  compelled 
to  discontinue  His  ministry.  In  Galilee,  on  the  contrary, 
all  were  ready  to  honor  Him.*  3.  Galilee  is  His  own  coun- 
try where,  according  to  the  proverb,  He  would  have  had 
no  honor,  except  He  had  first  gone  into  Judea  and  distin- 
guished Himself  there.  It  was  His  miracles  and  works 
abroad  that  gave  Him  feme  and  favor  at  home.' 

The  last  interpretation  appears  best  to  suit  the  scope  of 
the  narrative.  The  connection  between  vs.  43  and  44  is 
this ;  in  v.  43  the  fact  is  stated  that  He  went  into  Galilee, 
and  in  v.  44  the  reason  is  assigned  why  He  went.  As,  ac- 
cording to  the  proverb,  a  prophet  is  without  honor  in  his 
own  country,  by  retiring  into  Galilee  He  could  avoid  all 
publicity,  and  find  retirement.  But  in  v.  45  the  fact  is 
stated  that  the  Galileans,  notwithstanding  the  proverb,  did 
receive  Him,  and  the  reason  is  also  added,  because  they  had 
been  at  Jerusalem,  and  had  seen  what  He  did  there.  And 
in  verses  46-53  a  particular  instance  is  given,  showing  how 
high  His  reputation  in  Galilee,  and  what  publicity  attended 
His  movements.  His  arrival  at  Cana  was  soon  known  at 
Capernaum,  and  a  nobleman  from  the  latter  city,  supposed 
by  many  to  be  Chuza,  steward  of  Herod,  coming  to  Him, 
desires  that  He  would  return  with  him,  and  heal  his  son. 
Without  leaving  Cana,  Jesus  heals  him.  This  was  His 
second  Galilean  miracle. 

From  the  time  of  this  miracle  at  Cana,  we  lose  sight  of 
the  Lord  till  He  reappears  going  up  to  a  feast  at  Jerusalem 
(John  v.  1.)    1^  as  we  have  supposed,  He  left  Judea  in  De- 

>  Lightfoot,  Kraffi.         >  Ebrard,  Norton.         >  Meyer,  Alford. 
8 


170  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB  LOED. 

cember,  this  miracle  must  have  been  wrought  soon  after 
His  arrival  in  Galilee.  As  the  first  feast  which  He  could 
attend  was  that  of  Purim,  in  March,  an  interval  of  some 
two  or  three  months  must  have  elapsed.  If  this  feast  were 
the  Passover,  or  any  of  the  later  feasts,  this  interval  was 
correspondingly  prolonged.  How  was  this  time  spent? 
Those  who  make  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist  to  have 
taken  place  before  He  left  Judea,  suppose  that  He  now  en- 
tered upon  His  Galilean  work.  But,  upon  grounds  already 
stated,  we  conclude  that  John  was  not  yet  imprisoned,  and 
therefore  His  Galilean  work  could  not  now  begin,  as  the 
two  are  closely  connected  by  the  Synoptists,  (Matt.  iv.  13, 
Mark  i.  14,  Luke  iii.  20,  and  iv.  14.)  Several  additional 
considerations  induce  us  to  think  that  this  period  was  not 
spent  in  any  public  labors.  1.  When,  after  the  imprisonment 
of  John,  Jesus  went  into  Galilee  to  teach  and  to  preach, 
His  disciples  were  not  with  Him,  and  not  till  He  had  begun 
His  labors  at  Capernaum  did  they  rejoin  Him,  (Matt.  iv.  1 8, 
Mark  i.  16;  Luke  v.  2-11.)  There  was,  then,  an  interval 
after  He  had  ended  His  baptismal  labors  in  Judea,  in  which 
they  were  His  helpers,  and  before  the  beginning  of  His 
ministry  in  Galilee,  during  which  His  disciples  were  sepa- 
rated from  Him,  and  seem  to  have  returned  to  their  accus- 
tomed avocations.  But  if  His  Galilean  work  began  as  soon 
as  His  Judean  work  ended,  there  was  no  time  for  them  to 
have  thus  returned  to  their  homes,  and,  therefore,  no  op- 
portunity to  recall  them  to  His  service. 

2.  The  Lord  gave  up  baptizing,  as  we  have  seen,  be- 
cause of  the  hostility  of  the  Pharisees,  and  their  rejection 
of  the  rite.  But,  so  long  as  John  was  able,  both  in  word 
and  act,  to  bear  witness  to  Him  as  the  Messiah,  He  could 
Himself  seek  retirement,  and  wait  the  issue  of  John's  min- 
istry. He  could  not,  till  the  Baptist  was  imprisoned  and 
his  voice  thus  silenced,  finally  leave  Judea  and  begin  His 
work  in  Galilee.     To  Galilee  He  went,  therefore,  as  a  place 


JESUS   AT  JERUSALEM.  171 

of  seclusion,  not  of  publicity ;  of  rest,  not  of  activity.  The 
proverb,  that  a  prophet  has  no  honor  in  his  own  country, 
did  not  indeed  prove  true  in  His  case.  He  was  honorably 
received,  and  immediately  besought  to  heal  the  sick.  Still 
there  is  no  record  that  He  entered  upon  any  public  labors, 
that  He  preached  or  taught  in  the  synagogues,  or  wrought 
any  miracles.  How  or  where  His  time  was  spent,  can  only 
be  conjectured.  From  the  fact  that  no  mention  is  made  of 
Nazareth,  it  has  been  inferred  that  He  purposely  avoided 
that  city,  and  took  another  route  to  Cana.1  That  He  is 
spoken  of  as  being  at  Cana,  gives  a  show  of  confirmation  to 
the  supposition  already  alluded  to,  that  Mary  and  her  chil- 
dren had  now  left  Nazareth,  and  were  dwelling  at  Cana. 
But  we  may  as  readily  suppose  that  He  was  now  visiting 
at  the  house  of  the  friends  or  relatives,  where  he  changed 
the  water  into  wine. 


Passover,  March  30 — April  5,  781.    a.  d.  28. 

From  Galilee  Jesus  goes  up  to  the  feast  of  the  Pas-  John  v.  1. 

sover,  and  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda  heals  an  impotent  John  v.  2-9. 

man.     This  act,  done  on  the  Sabbath  day,  arouses  the  John  v.  10-16. 

anger  of  the  Jews,  who  conspire  against  His  life.     He  John  v.  17-47. 

defends  His  right  to  heal  on  the  Sabbath  upon  grounds  Matt.  iv.  12. 

that  still  more  exasperate  them.     At  this  time  He  hears  Mark  i.  14. 

of  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist,  and  retires  to  Galilee,  Luke  iv.  14. 
to  begin  His  work  there. 

"  After  this  there  was  a  feast  of  the  Jews ;  and  Jesus 
went  up  to  Jerusalem."  Which  feast  was  this  ?  Opinions 
are  divided  between  Purim  in  March,  Passover  in  April, 
Pentecost  in  May,  and  Tabernacles  in  September.  Before 
considering  the  arguments  used  in  favor  of  each  by  their 
respective  advocates,  let  us  examine  the  statement  of  John. 

»  So  Newcome. 


172  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LORD. 

There  is  much  doubt  as  to  the  true  reading,  whether  a 
feast  or  the  feast,  toprrj  or  17  eoprrq.  Tischendorf l  retains 
the  article,  Meyer  and  Alford  reject  it.  The  weight  of 
authority  seems  against  it,  and  at  any  rate  the  reading  is 
so  doubtful  that  we  can  lay  no  stress  upon  it.*  But  if  it 
were  "  the  feast,"  rj  copr^,  this  would  not,  of  itself,  as  some 
suppose,8  decide  in  favor  of  the  Passover,  as  it  might  refer 
either  to  Passover  or  to  Tabernacles,  the  two  most  promi- 
nent feasts.  Of  the  latter  Josephus  speaks,*  as  "a  feast 
most  holy  and  eminent ; "  and  again,5  as  "  a  festival  very 
much  observed  amongst  us."  But  if  the  article  would  not 
limit  this  feast  to  the  Passover,  it  would  certainly  exclude 
the  lesser  feasts,  as  that  of  Purim. 

But,  if  the  article  be  wanting,  it  is  said  that  the  feast  is 
still  defined  by  the  addition  to  it  of  the  explanatory  words 
"  of  the  Jews,"  tuv  IovSuiwv.9  It  is  given  as  a  rule  of  He- 
brew, and  so  transferred  to  Scripture  Greek,  that  the 
"  noun  before  a  genitive  is  made  definite  by  prefixing  the 
article,  not  to  the  noun  itself,  but  to  the  genitive." 7  Thus 
the  phrase  before  us  should  be  rendered  "  the  feast  of  the 
Jews,"  or  "  the  Jews'  festival,"  which  must  be  understood 
of  the  Passover.  But  the  rule  is  given  with  an  important 
qualification  by  Winer,8  "  The  article  is  frequently  omitted, 
when  a  noun,  denoting  an  object  of  which  the  individual  re- 
ferred to  possesses  but  one,  is  clearly  defined  by  means  of 
a  genitive  following."'  As  there  was  but  one  feast  of  Tab- 
ernacles, the  phrase  eoprr)  twv  o-k7)v<dv  would  be  properly  ren- 

1  Synopsis,  xxvi.,  note  2. 

8  It  is  found  in  the  newly  discovered  Sinaitic  manuscript,  but  the  value  of 
that  MS.  is  not  yet  settled. 

3  Hengstenberg,  Robinson.  «  Antiq.,  8.  4.  1. 

5  Antiq.,  15.  3.  3.  «  Hug,  Int.,  449. 

7  Robinson,  Har.,  190.    See  in  the  Septuagint,  Deut  xvi.  13;   2  Bangs, 
xviii.  15  ;   also  Matt.  xii.  24;  Luke  ii.  11 ;  Acts  viii.  5. 

8  Gram.,  107. 

9  See  also  Liicke  in  loco,  who  agrees  that  only  where  the  governing  nous 
exists  singly  in  its  kind,  is  it  rendered  definite  by  a  noun  following. 


SECOND  PASSOVER   OF   HIS  MINISTRY.  173 

dered  "the  feast  of  Tabernacles;"  but  as  there  were  sev- 
eral feasts  kept  by  the  Jews,  toprq  rwv  Iov&uwv,  "  feast  of 
the  Jews,"  may  mean  any  feast.  The  passages  cited  by 
Robinson  come  all  under  the  above  rule. 

From  the  form  of  the  expression,  then,  nothing  can  be 
determined.  We  learn  simply  that  Jesus  went  up  to  Jeru- 
salem at  one  of  the  Jewish  feasts.  We  do  not  even  learn 
whether  it  was  one  of  the  greater  or  lesser  feasts.  It  seems 
to  be  mentioned  only  as  giving  the  occasion  why  He  went 
up  to  Jerusalem.  He  would  not  have  gone  except  there 
had  been  a  feast,  but  its  name  was  unimportant  to  the 
Evangelist's  purpose.1  Let  us  then  enquire  what  light  is 
thrown  upon  it  from  the  general  scope  of  this  Gospel. 

It  is  apparent  that  John  does  not  design,  any  more  than 
the  other  Evangelists,  to  give  us  a  complete  chronological 
outline  of  the  Lord's  life.  But  we  see  that  he  mentions  by 
name  several  feasts  which  the  Lord  attended,  which  the 
Synoptists  do  not  mention  at  all.9  The  last  Passover  all 
the  Evangelists  mention  in  common.  But  these  were  by 
no  means  all  the  feasts  that  occurred  during  His  ministry. 
That  of  Pentecost  is  nowhere  mentioned,  nor  does  John 
say  that  those  mentioned  by  him  were  all  that  Jesus  at- 
tended. During  the  first  year  of  His  labors,  or  whilst  bap- 
tizing in  Judea,  there  is  good  ground  to  believe  that  He 
was  present  at  the  three  chief  feasts,  though  the  Passover 
only  is  mentioned.  On  the  other  hand,  one  Passover  is 
mentioned  which  it  is  probable  He  did  not  attend,  (John  vi. 
4.)  Upon  examination,  we  see  that  the  feasts  which  are 
alluded  to  stand  in  some  close  connection  with  the  Lord's 
words  or  acts,  so  that  it  is  necessary  to  specify  them.  Thus 
in  ii.  13,  the  mention  of  the  Passover  explains  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  temple,  or  driving  out  of  the  sellers  of  oxen  and 
sheep ;  in  vi.  4  it  explains  how  such  a  great  company  should 

»  See  Luthardt  in  loco. 

*  See  ii.  13 ;  vi.  4 ;  vii.  2 ;  x.  22. 


174  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

have  gathered  to  Him  in  so  lonely  a  region  across  the  sea ; 
in  vii.  2  His  words  take  their  significance  from  the  special 
ceremonies  connected  with  that  feast ;  in  x.  22  His  presence 
in  Solomon's  porch  is  thus  explained.  In  each  of  these  cases 
the  name  of  the  feast  is  mentioned,  not  primarily  as  a  datum 
of  time,  but  as  explanatory  of  something  in  the  narrative ; 
and  as  the  mention  of  the  other  feasts  was  unimportant  to 
his  purpose,  John  passes  them  by  in  silence.  But  the  feast 
before  us  he  mentions,  yet  does  not  give  its  name.  What 
shall  we  infer  from  this  ?  Some  infer  that  it  must  have 
been  one  of  the  minor  feasts,  for  had  it  been  one  of  the 
chief  feasts  it  would  have  been  named.  But  as  he  specifies 
(x.  22)  one  of  the  minor  feasts,  there  seems  no  sufficient 
reason  why  he  should  not  specify  this,  had  it  been  such. 
All  that  we  can  say  is,  that  there  was  no  such  connection 
between  this  feast  and  what  Jesus  said  or  did  while  attend- 
ing it  that  it  was  necessary  to  specify  it.  The  healing  of 
the  impotent  man,  and  the  events  that  followed,  might  have 
taken  place  at  any  feast. 

The  silence,  then,  of  John  determines  nothing  respect- 
ing the  nature  of  this  feast.  We  cannot  infer  because  he 
has  mentioned  three  Passovers  beside,  that  this  was  a 
fourth ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  would  so  specify  it 
had  it  been  a  Passover. 

Let  us  now  pass  in  review  the  various  feasts,  and  con- 
sider what  may  be  said  in  favor  of  each.  We  have  seen 
that  in  December  the  Lord  left  Judea  for  Galilee.  The 
first  feast  was  that  of  Dedication,  which  was  observed  in 
Kislev,  or  about  the  middle  of  December.  It  is  generally 
agreed  that  this  feast  cannot  be  meant.  The  next  in  order 
was  Purim,  which  fell  in  March.  That  this  feast  was  the 
one  in  question  was  first  suggested  by  Kepler,  but  has 
since  found  many  eminent  supporters.1    But  before  we  con- 

*  See  Meyer  in  loco. 


SECOND   PASSOVKB  OF   HIS  MINISTRY.  175 

aider  the  arguments  in  its  favor,  let  us  examine  its  origin 
and  history.  Purim  was  not  a  Mosaic  feast,  or  of  divine 
appointment,  but  one  established  by  the  Jews  whilst  in 
captivity,  in  commemoration  of  their  deliverance  from  the 
murderous  plans  of  Hainan,  (Esther  iii.  7 ;  ix.  24.)  It  is  de- 
rived from  "  pur,"  the  Persian  word  for  lot.  Haman  sought 
to  find  an  auspicious  day  for  the  execution  of  his  design  by 
casting  lots.  The  lot  fell  on  the  14th  Adar.  Failing  in  his 
purpose,  this  day  was  kept  thereafter  by  the  Jews  as  a  fes- 
tival. It  seems,  however,  to  have  been  first  observed  by 
the  Jews  out  of  Palestine,  and  eighty-five  elders  made  ex- 
ceptions against  it  as  an  innovation  against  the  Law.1  It  is 
mentioned  in  Maccabees  (2  Mac.  xv.  36)  as  Mordecai's 
day.  It  is  also  mentioned  by  Josephus,'  who  says  "  that 
even  now  all  the  Jews  that  are  in  the  habitable  earth 
keep  these  days  festival."  It  is  often  alluded  to  in  the  Tal- 
mud.' 

Such  was  the  origin  of  the  feast.  It  was  commemo- 
rated by  the  reading  of  Esther  in  the  synagogues,  and  by 
general  festivity,  with  plays  and  masquerades.  Maimon- 
ides  says  it  was  forbidden  to  fast  or  weep  on  this  day.  It 
was  rather  a  national  and  political,  than  religious  so- 
lemnity,4 and  as  no  special  services  were  appointed  for  its 
observance  at  the  temple,  there  was  no  necessity  of  going 
up  to  Jerusalem,  no»  does  it  appear  that  this  was  their  cus- 
tom. Each  Jew  observed  it  as  a  day  of  patriotic  rejoicing 
and  festivity,  wherever  he  chanced  to  be.'  Lightfoot  (on 
Mark  i.  38)  remarks  that  if  the  feast  did  not  come  on  a 

»  Lightfoot  on  John  x.  22.  »  Antiq.,  11.  6.  13. 

»  Winer,  ii.  289.  «  Ewald,  iv.  261. 

•  Of  the  mode  of  its  observance  in  this  country  at  the  present  time,  a 
recent  New  York  journal  gives  the  following  account :  "  The  day  is  devoted 
to  mirth  and  merry-making.  In  the  evening  and  morning  the  synagogues 
are  lighted  up,  and  the  reader  chants  the  book  of  Esther.  It  is  a  custom 
among  the  Jews  on  this  occasion  to  visit  each  other's  house  in  masked  attire, 
and  exchange  joyful  greetings." 


176  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LOED. 

synagogue  day,  those  living  in  a  village  where  was  no 
synagogue,  need  not  go  to  some  other  village  "to  read  the 
book  of  Esther,  but  could  wait  till  a  synagogue  day.1 

From  this  brief  survey  of  the  history,  and  the  manner 
of  observance  of  this  feast,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  it 
is  the  feast  meant  by  John.  It  was  not  one  of  their  di- 
vinely appointed  feasts,  nor  was  there  any  legal  obligation 
to  keep  it.  It  was  not  a  feast  specifically  religious,  but 
patriotic;  a  day,  making  due  allowance  for  difference  in 
customs  and  institutions,  not  unlike  the  day  that  commem- 
orates our  own  national  independence.  There  were  no 
special  rites  that  made  it  necessary  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem, 
and  even  those  residing  in  villages  where  was  no  syn- 
agogue were  not  obliged  to  go  to  a  village  where  one  was 
to  be  found.  Why  then  should  Jesus  go  up  from  Galilee 
to  be  present  at  this  feast  ?  It  was  not  a  time  in  which 
men's  minds  were  prepared  to  hear  spiritual  instruction, 
nor  could  He  sympathize  with  the  rude  and  boisterous,  not 
to  say  disorderly  and  drunken  manner  in  which  the  day 
was  kept.  Stier,  (v.  75,)  who  defends  Purim,  admits  "  the 
revengeful  and  extravagant  spirit  which  animated  it,"  and 
M  the  debauched  manner  in  which  these  days  of  excess  were 
spent."  Yet  he  thinks  motives  of  compassion  disposed  the 
Lord  to  visit  once  M  this  melancholy  caricature  of  a  holy 
festivity."  But  we  can  see  no  sufficient  motive  for  such  a 
journey.  The  tenor  of  the  narrative  naturally  leads  us  to 
think  of  one  of  the  greater  and  generally  attended  festivals. 
If  it  be  said  of  a  Jew  that  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  a 
feast,  the  obvious  understanding  would  be  that  it  was  a 
feast  that  he  was  legally  bound  to  attend,  and  which  could 
be  rightly  kept  only  at  Jerusalem. 

The  chief  argument  in  favor  of  Purim  is  that  it  is 
brought  by  John  into  such  close  connection  with  the  Pass- 

1  See  generally  Hengstenberg,  Christ,  iii.  240     Hug,  Int.,  449;  Wieseler, 
222;   Brown,  Jew.  Antiq.,  i.  574. 


SECOND  PASSOVER  OF   HIS  MINISTRY  HI 

over,  (vi.  4,)  and  that  if  it  be  not  Purim,  then  a  year  and 
a  half,  at  least,  most  have  elapsed  ere  Jesus  visited  Jerusa- 
lem again,  the  next  recorded  visit  being  that  to  Taberna- 
cles, (John  viL  2.)  It  certainly,  at  first  sight,  seems  im- 
probable that  a  year  should  intervene  between  v.  1  and  vi. 
4,  as  would  be  the  case  if  the  former  were  a  Passover.  But 
this  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which  John  narrates  events 
widely  separated  in  time,  without  noting  the  interval. 
Thus,  ch.  vi.  relates  what  took  place  before  a  Passover,  and 
ch.  viL  what  took  place  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  six 
months  later.  In  like  manner,  in  x.  22,  is  a  sudden  transition 
trom  this  feast  of  Tabernacles  to  that  of  Dedication.  Why 
the  intervening  events  are  not  mentioned  finds  explanation 
in  the  peculiar  character  of  this  gospel.  That  Jesus  should 
have  absented  Himself  for  so  long  a  time  from  the  feasts,  is 
explained  by  the  hostility  of  the  Jews,  and  their  purpose  to 
slay  Him,  (John  v.  16-18;  vii.  1.) 

On  the  other  hand,  if  this  feast  be  Purira,  and  the  Pass- 
over, vi.  4,  the  first  Passover  after,  or  the  second  of  the 
Lord's  ministry,  then  the  interval  between  them,  about 
three  weeks,  is  not  sufficient  for  all  the  events  that  must 
have  taken  place.  And  still  less  is  the  interval  between 
December,  when  most  of  the  advocates  of  Purira  suppose 
the  Lord's  Galilean  work  to  have  begun,  and  the  following 
Passover  (vi.  4)  sufficient  to  include  all  that  the  Evangel- 
ists relate.  The  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  as  is  gener- 
ally agreed,  and  as  will  be  hereafter  shown,  marks  the 
culmination  of  His  work  in  Galilee ;  yet  this  took  place, 
according  to  this  view,  in  three  or  four  months  after  His 
work  began,  for  it  was  a  little  before  the  Passover,  (vi.  4.) 
And  into  this  short  space  are  crowded  two-thirds,  at  least, 
of  all  that  He  did  in  Galilee,  so  far  as  recorded.  This 
would  be  very  improbable,  even  if,  as  is  supposed,  His  la- 
bors there  extended  only  through  a  year.  In  the  highest 
degree  improbable  is  the  view  of  Wieseler,  followed  by  El- 
8« 


178  THB  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

licott,  that  for  all  this,  the  little  interval  between  Purim 
and  Passover  was  sufficient.1 

Upon  these  grounds  we  think  the  feast  of  Purim  is  to  be 
rejected.  It  was  a  feast  which  it  is  not  at  all  probable  Jesus 
would  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  attend,  and  whose  introduc- 
tion here  brings  chronological  confusion  into  the  gospel 
history. 

The  next  feast  in  order  is  that  of  the  Passover.  In 
favor  of  this  feast  it  may  be  said,  that  it  was  one  which 
Jesus  would  naturally  attend,  as  having  for  Him  a  special 
significance.  It  was  also  the  feast  that  had  the  most  dis- 
tinctly religious  character,  and  it  was  very  generally  at- 
tended by  the  people,  especially  the  most  serious  and  de- 
vout. According  to  Hengstenberg,  "  it  was  the  only  one 
at  which  it  was  a  universal  custom  to  make  a  pilgrimage  to 
Jerusalem." a  We  may  thus  infer  that  He  would  certainly 
go,  unless  prevented  by  the  open  hostility  of  the  Jews. 
But  no  such  hostility  appears.  It  was  aroused  by  the  heal- 
ing of  the  impotent  man  (John  v.  16-18)  into  activity,  but 
till  this  event  He  was  unmolested. 

But  the  objection  is  taken  that  if  this  be  a  Passover,  and 
another  is  mentioned,  (vi.  4,)  which  apparently  He  did  not 
attend,  then  He  was  not  present  at  any  feast  till  the  feast 
of  Tabernacles,  (vii.  2,)  a  period  of  a  year  and  a  half.* 
This  objection  has  been  already  alluded  to.  Whether  the 
Lord  did  actually  go  up  to  any  feast  between  that  of  v.  1 
and  that  of  vii.  2,  cannot  be  determined.4  We  know,  at 
least,  that  He  would  not,  after  the  rulers  at  Jerusalem  had 
sought  to  slay  Him,  needlessly  expose  His  life  to  peril.  To 
the  laws  of  God  respecting  the  feasts  He  would  render  all 
obedience,  but  with  the  liberty  of  a  son,  not  with  the  ser- 

1  See  Liechtenstein,  174 ;  Riggenbach,  406. 

2  See  Luke  ii.  41,  where  this  feast  is  specially  mentioned. 
«  Hug,  Int.,  448. 

*  Jarvis,  Int.,  570-576,  makes  Him  to  have  attended  them  all,  even  that 
of  Dedication.    This  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 


SECOND  PASSOVKB   OF   HIS  MINISTRY.  179 

vile  scrupulosity  of  a  Pharisee.  As  He  was  Lord  of  the 
Sabbath,  so  He  was  Lord  of  the  Feasts,  and  He  attended 
them,  or  did  not  attend  them,  as  seemed  best  to  Him, 
From  John,  (vii.  21  and  23,)  where  He  refers  to  a  work 
which  He  had  previously  done  at  Jerusalem,  and  which  we 
must  identify  with  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man,  (John 
v.  5,)  it  appears  obvious  that  He  had  not,  during  the  inter- 
val, been  publicly  teaching  there,  and  therefore  had  not 
attended  any  feast.  Still  the  point  is  not  certain,  as  He 
might  have  been  present  as  a  private  worshipper,  and  with- 
out attracting  public  attention ;  yet  this  is  improbable.1 

Another  objection  to  identifying  this  feast  with  the 
Passover  is  that  John  relates  nothing  as  having  occurred 
between  v.  1  and  vL  4,  an  interval  of  a  year.  This  objec- 
tion has  already  been  sufficiently  noticed. 

Pentecost  is  the  feast  next  in  order,  and  occurred  this 
year  on  the  19th  May.  This  feast  is  not  mentioned  by  any 
of  the  Evangelists.  Though  it  has  had  some  able  advo- 
cates, as  Calvin,  Bengel,  and  lately  Townsend,  and  was 
adopted  by  many  of  the  ancients,  it  has  no  special  argu- 
ments in  its  favor.  It  was  not  so  generally  attended  as 
Passover  or  Tabernacles,  and  no  reason  appears  why  Jesus 
should  have  omitted  Passover  and  gone  up  to  Pentecost. 

The  feast  of  Tabernacles  followed  upon  the  23d  of  Sep- 
tember. The  chief  argument  in  its  favor  is  that  it  brings  the 
feast  of  v.  1  into  close  connection  with  that  of  vii.  2,  only  a 
year  intervening,  and  thus  best  explains  his  words,  vii.  21- 
23.f  But  some  months  more  or  less  are  not,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, important,  for  the  miracle  with  its  results  must 
have  been  fresh  in  their  minds  even  after  a  much  longer 
interval.     If  He  had  not  in  the  interval  between  these 

»  See  Greswell,  ii.  247,  who  maintains  that  the  five  instances  recorded  by 
John  "  embrace  all  the  instances  of  our  Saviour's  attendance  in  Jerusalem  at 
any  of  the  feasts." 

•  So  Riggenbach,  408. 


180  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

feasts  been  at  Jerusalem,  as  is  most  probable,  His  reappear- 
ance would  naturally  carry  their  minds  back  to  the  time 
when  they  last  saw  Him,  and  recall  both  His  work  and 
their  own  machinations  against  Him.  Lichtenstein  (175) 
defends  this  feast,  but  it  is  in  connection  with  the  view 
which  we  cannot  adopt,  that  our  Lord  spent  the  summer 
of  780  in  retirement. 

The  great  objection  to  identifying  the  feast  before  us 
with  that  of  Tabernacles,  is  that  it  puts  between  the  end  of 
chap.  iv.  and  the  beginning  of  chap.  v.  a  period  of  eight  or 
nine  months,  which  the  Evangelists  pass  over  in  silence.1 

Comparing  these  various  feasts  together,  that  of  the 
Passover  seems  to  have  most  in  its  favor,  and  that  of 
Purim  least.  Some  incidental  points  bearing  upon  this 
question  will  be  discussed  as  we  proceed.  We  give  the 
following  order  as  the  result  of  our  inquiries :  Jesus  ceases 
baptizing  and  leaves  Judea  in  December,  780.  His  disci- 
ples depart  to  their  homes,  and  He  lives  in  retirement  till 
March,  781,  when  He  goes  up  to  this  feast,  the  Passover. 
At  this  time,  on  His  way  or  after  His  arrival,  He  hears  of 
the  imprisonment  of  John,  and  returns  to  Galilee  to  begin 
His  work  there. 

The  name  of  the  pool,  Bethesda,  locus  benignitatis, 
"  house  of  mercy,"  indicates  that  it  was  a  place  of  resort 
for  the  sick,  and  that  its  waters  had,  naturally  or  super- 
naturally,  healing  virtue.*  Its  position  is  mentioned  as 
being  near  the  sheep  gate,  for  so  em  ry  Trpo^arucQ  is  gen- 
erally understood.  About  the  pool  were  five  porches  or 
arches,  where  the  sick  might  be  sheltered. 

A  pool  has  long  been  shown  at  Jerusalem  as  the  pool 
of  Bethesda.    It  lies  near  St.  Stephen's  gate,  along  the 

1  Ebrard  avoids  this  objection,  but  falls  into  another  as  great  by  supposing 
nothing  recorded  between  the  two  feasts,  (John  v.  1,  and  vii.  2),  but  the 
sending  of  the  twelve  and  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand. 

9  As  to  other  etymologies,  see  Herzog,  Encyc.  ii.  118  ;  Riggenbach 
406,  note. 


POOL   OF  BETHESDA.  181 

north  wall  of  the  Temple,  and  is  360  feet  long,  130  broad, 
and  75  deep.1  There  are  still  to  be  seen  at  the  southwest 
corner  two  arched  vaults,  one  of  which  Dr.  Robinson  meas- 
ured 100  feet  westward.  He  infers  that  this  excavation  is 
part  of  the  deep  trench  that  once  separated  the  temple 
enclosure  from  the  adjoining  hill,*  and  that  it  extended  to 
the  northwest  corner  of  Antonia.  It  was  afterward  used 
as  a  reservoir,  its  walls  within  being  cased  over  with  small 
stones,  and  these  covered  with  plaster,  but  bearing  no 
special  marks  of  antiquity.'  Ferguson,  however,4  affirms 
that  from  "  the  curiously  elaborate  character  of  its  hydraulic 
masonry  it  must  always  have  been  intended  as  a  reservoir 
of  water,  and  never  could  have  been  the  ditch  of  a  fortifi- 
cation."  ■  The  traditional  site  is  defended  by  Williams,  and 
approved  by  Ellicott.  According  to  Wilson,  it  was  both 
the  "fosse"  and  the  "pool."  De  Saulcy,  (ii.  285,)  following 
Jerome  and  some  of  the  early  travellers,  maintains  that  the 
language  of  the  Evangelist  should  be  understood,  "  Now 
there  is  in  Jerusalem  by  the  Probatica  (pool)  a  pool  called 
Bethesda,"  <fcc  Thus  there  were  two  pools,  piscince  gemiU 
lares,  "twin  fish  pools,"  one  called  Probatica  and  one 
Bethesda,  of  which  the  latter  is  the  same  as  that  now 
known  by  this  name,  and  the  two  were  connected  together 
by  the  arches  still  to  be  seen.  Stewart,  (278)  also,  supposes 
that  two  separate  pools  lay  along  the  northern  wall  of  the 
Temple  enclosure,  the  sheep  gate  being  between  them,  one 
of  which  was  the  Struthius  of  Josephus,  the  other  the  pool 
of  Bethesda.  Robinson  (i.  342  ;  iii.  249)  would  identify  the 
pool  of  Bethesda  with  the  present  fountain  of  the  Virgin. 
The  waters  of  this  fountain  flow  irregularly  or  intermit- 
tently, and  thus  "  the  moving  of  the  water,"  v.  3,  may  be 

»  Robinson,  i.  298.  •  Josephus,  War,  5.  4.  2. 

»  With  Robinson,  Porter,  i.  115,  and  Barclay,  824,  agree. 

*  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  i.  1028. 

•  See  also  Idem,  art.  Bethesda,  200 ;  Stewart,  Tent  and  Khan,  277. 


182  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD. 

accounted  for.  The  fountain  is  thus  described  by  Porter 
(i.  139):  "The  water  springs  up  at  the  bottom  of  an  arti- 
ficial cave  some  25  feet  deep,  excavated  in  the  rock  of 
Ophel.  Descending  by  a  flight  of  16  steps,  we  reach  a 
chamber  18  feet  long  by  10  wide  and  10  high.  Thence 
going  down  14  steps  more  into  a  roughly  hewn  grotto,  we 
reach  the  water."  Barclay  says  (516)  "the  stream  ebbs 
and  flows  quite  irregularly,  but  generally  three  or  four 
times  a  day  in  Autumn,  and  oftener  in  Spring,  running  from 
two  to  four  hours  in  the  twenty-four,  and  appearing  per- 
fectly quiescent  during  the  remainder  of  the  day,  although 
a  little  water  always  runs."  It  is  plain  that  this  fountain, 
a  deep  excavation  in  the  rock,  difficult  of  access,  and  with- 
out any  space  in  its  narrow  chamber  for  the  five  porches, 
cannot  have  been  the  place  where  "  lay  a  great  multitude 
of  impotent  folk."  Barclay  also  objects  that  there  is  no 
proof  that  it  was  intermittent  in  the  time  of  the  Lord,  and 
derives  an  argument  from  the  silence  of  Josephus,  and  of 
the  Roman  writers.  The  narrative  seems  plainly  to  imply 
supernatural  agency.'  Lightfoot  makes  the  pool  of  Be- 
thesda  to  be  that  of  Siloam.  To  the  waters  of  Siloam  he 
ascribes  supernatural  virtues.  In  regard  to  Bethesda  he 
says  (v.  238) :  "The  general  silence  of  the  Jews  about  the 
wondrous  virtue  of  this  pool  is  something  strange,  who,  in 
the  abundant  praises  and  privileges  and  particulars  of 
Jerusalem  which  they  give,  yet  speak  not  one  syllable,  that 
I  have  ever  found,  toward  the  story  of  Bethesda."  Bar- 
clay (326)  finds  another  site  for  this  pool  on  the  lower  side 
of  the  sheep  quarter,  to  the  east  of  the  Temple.  -  By  some 
it  has  been  held  to  be  a  tank  just  north  of  St.  Stephen's 
gate. 

1  It  should,  however,  be  remembered,  that  verse  4,  "  For  an  angel  went 
down  at  a  certain  season  into  the  popl,"  Ac,  is  of  doubtful  genuineness.  It 
is  rejected  by  Teschendorf,  Meyer,  and  Alford,  but  defended  by  De  Wette  aBd 
Stier.    See  Alford  in  loco ;  Trench,  Mir.  203. 


HEALING   OF  THE    IMPOTENT   MAN  183 

As  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man  took  place  on  the 
Sabbath,  it  gave  the  Jews  the  desired  opportunity  of  ac- 
cusing Him  of  a  breach  of  the  law ;  and  it  seems  indeed  as 
if  the  Lord  desired  to  judge  their  whole  system  of  legal 
righteousness,  by  an  emphatic  condemnation  of  the  inter- 
pretation they  gave  to  one  of  the  most  important  of  the 
commandments.  Lightfoot  (in  loco)  observes :  "  It  is 
worthy  our  observation  that  our  Saviour  did  not  think  it 
enough  merely  to  heal  the  impotent  man  on  the  Sabbath 
day,  which  was  against  their  rules,  but  farther  commanded 
him  to  take  up  his  bed,  which  was  much  more  against  that 
rule."  A  rigid  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  even  to  the 
prohibition  of  the  healing  of  the  sick  on  that  day,  (Luke 
xiii.  14,)  was  a  main  element  of  Pharisaic  righteousness,  and 
therefore  on  this  point  He  took  issue  with  them.  Accord- 
ing to  the  order  we  follow,  it  was  the  first  time  that  He 
had  healed  on  the  Sabbath,  and  the  question  how  such  a 
work  should  be  regarded,  whether  as  lawful  or  unlawful, 
came  before  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  at  Jerusalem  for 
their  decision.  That  they  decided  it  to  be  unlawful,  appears 
from  the  angry  opposition  which  subsequent  cases  of  healing 
on  that  day  called  forth. 

With  this  miracle,  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man,  the 
Lord's  Judean  work,  or  the  first  stage  of  His  ministry, 
came  to  its  close.  It  brought  out  the  enmity  of  the  Jews 
at  Jerusalem  into  full  manifestation,  and  showed  how  un- 
prepared were  the  rulers,  the  priests  and  scribes,  and  eld- 
ers, to  receive  Him.  In  vain  John  bore  witness  to  Him,  in 
vain  He  Himself  taught  and  wrought  miracles.  They  had 
neither  eyes  to  see,  nor  ears  to  hear.  It  is  apparent  that 
from  the  very  first  they  had  regarded  Him  with  great  sus- 
picion, arising  from  His  peculiar  relations  to  John  the  Bap- 
tist, whom  they  disliked  and  rejected.  His  assumption  of  au- 
thority at  the  purification  of  the  temple,  and  the  sharp 
reproof  which  that  act  implied,  of  their  own  criminal  re- 


184  THE  LIFE  OUR  LORD. 

missness,  must  have  been  in  the  highest  degree  offensive  to 
them  ;  nor  did  any  miracle  that  He  subsequently  wrought 
remove  their  dislike,  or  convince  them  of  His  divine  com- 
mission. Although  they  took  no  active  measures  to  stay 
Him  in  the  work  of  baptizing,  yet  it  is  evident  that  they 
were  annoyed  and  angry  at  the  numbers  that  flocked  to 
His  baptism.  But  there  was  yet  no  sufficient  ground  for 
open  opposition,  and  they  seemed  to  have  gained  a  victory, 
in  that  He  had  given  up  His  work  of  baptizing  and  retired 
into  Galilee.  But  now  that  He  comes  to  Jerusalem,  and 
violates  the  Sabbath  by  working  in  public  a  miracle  on  that 
day,  the  way  is  open  to  proceed  against  Him  as  a  breaker 
of  the  law.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  He  was  now 
brought  before  the  Sanhedrim,  and  that  the  discourse  given 
(John  v.  17-47)  was  spoken  before  that  tribunal.  This  ap- 
pears from  His  allusion  to  the  deputation  from  Jerusalem 
to  the  Baptist,  (verse  33,)  "  Ye  sent  unto  John,  and  he 
bare  witness  unto  the  truth ;  "  a  deputation  sent  by  those 
He  was  then  addressing.1  Whether  any  judicial  action 
was  now  taken,  does  not  appear,  but  the  Evangelist  a  little 
later  explains  the  fact  of  His  ministry  in  Galilee,  by  saying 
that  He  could  not  walk  in  Judea,  "  because  the  Jews  sought 
to  kill  Him,"  (vii.  1.)  From  this  we  may  infer  that  it  was 
formally  determined  upon  to  seize  Him  and  put  Him  to 
death  if  found  in  Judea.a  From  this  province  He  was 
thus,  by  the  act  of  the  ecclesiastical  rulers,  excluded. 

The  ground  of  defence  in  the  Lord's  discourse  before 
the  Sanhedrim,  based  upon  His  divine  Sonship  and  His 
equality  with  God,  only  the  more  inflamed  the  anger  of 
His  enemies.  Not  only  did  He  claim  to  be  the  Messiah, 
but  more  ;  He  made  Himself  equal  with  God.  Regarded 
as  the  last  appeal  to  them  to  receive  Him,  the  closing  words 
of  His  Judean  ministry,  this  discourse  has  a  special  signif- 

1  So  Meyer,  Lange,  Tholuck.  »  Compare  John  vii.  25-32. 


RETURN  TO   GALILEE.  185 

icance.  It  states  first  the  relation  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  and  the  threefold  evidence  by  which  His  own 
mission  was  confirmed.  The  Baptist  bare  witness;  His 
own  works,  wrought  in  the  power  of  the  Father,  bare  wit- 
ness ;  and  finally,  the  Scriptures  bare  witness.1  But  even 
this  u  threefold  cord  »  did  not  bind  them,  and  nothing  now 
remained  but  to  turn  away  from  a  people  that  received 
Him  not,  (verse  43,)  and  enter  upon  a  new  stage  of  His 
work  in  despised  Galilee.  It  is  well  said  by  Ellicott,  (141,) 
M  This  is  the  turning  point  in  the  Gospel  history.  Up  to 
this  time  the  preaching  of  our  Lord  at  Jerusalem  and  in 
Judea  had  met  with  a  certain  degree  of  toleration,  and  in 
many  cases  even  of  acceptance ;  but  after  this  all  becomes 
changed.  Henceforth  the  City  of  David  is  no  meet  or  safe 
abode  for  the  son  of  David ;  the  earthly  house  of  His 
Heavenly  Father  is  no  longer  a  secure  hall  of  audience  for 
the  preaching  of  the  Eternal  Son." 

As  Jesus  now  left  Judea  and  only  returned  to  it  after  a 
considerable  interval,  and  then  only  for  very  brief  periods 
at  the  feasts,  His  enemies  in  that  province  had  little  oppor- 
tunity to  arrest  Him.  We  know,  however,  that  in  point 
of  fact  they  attempted  to  do  so  at  the  very  first  feast  He 
attended,  (John  vii.  32.)  So  long  as  He  was  in  Galilee,  all 
they  could  do  was  to  watch  His  proceedings  there,  and 
seize  upon  every  occasion  that  presented  itself  to  destroy 
His  reputation,  and  hinder  His  work.  How  zealously  they 
labored  to  this  end  will  appear  as  our  history  proceeds. 

»  See  "  The  Messiah,"  158. 


PART  III 

FROM  THE  IMPRISONMENT  TO  THE  DEATH  OF  JOHN  THE  BAP- 
TIST ;  OR,  FROM  APRIL,  781,  TO  MARCH,  782.     A.  D.  28,  29. 


Upon  the  LoroVs  Ministi-y  in  Galilee  to  the  Death  of 
the  Baptist. 

Op  the  general  character  of  the  Lord's  work  in  Galilee, 
as  distinguished  from  His  work  in  Judea,  we  have  already 
spoken,  when  considering  the  divisions  of  His  ministry.  It 
is  in  the  light  of  this  distinction  that  certain  remarkable, 
and  to  some  perplexing,  features  of  the  synoptical  Gospels 
find  their  explanation.  As  is  patent  upon  their  narratives, 
they  relate  nothing  that  the  Lord  did  prior  to  John  the 
Baptist's  imprisonment.  Only  from  the  Evangelist  John  do 
we  learn  that  His  field  of  labor,  till  the  Baptist  was  impris- 
oned, was  Judea.  Here  His  time  was  spent  from  the  Pass- 
over of  780  till  the  December  following,  and  if  He  resid- 
ed in  Galilee  a  few  weeks  till  the  feast,  (John  v.  1,)  as 
He  seems  to  have  done,  this  was  in  consequence  of  the 
enmity  of  the  Jews,  and  the  time  was  apparently  spent  in 
seclusion.  So  far  as  the  narratives  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke  go,  the  beginning  of  His  public  labors  is  to  be  dated 
from  the  time  when,  the  Baptist  being  cast  into  prison,  He 
went  from  Judea  into  Galilee.    They  all  assume  that  He 


CHARACTER   OP  THE  MINISTRY   IN  GALILEE.  187 

was  in  Judea  up  to  this  time,  this  being  the  province  to 
which  His  early  labors  were  confined.  The  reasons  why 
they  pass  over  in  silence  this  first  year  of  His  ministry,  and 
why  they  bring  His  work  in  Galilee  into  such  close  connec- 
tion with  the  Baptist,  we  now  proceed  to  consider. 

The  silence  of  the  Synoptists  respecting  the  Judean 
work  of  the  Lord,  will  not  appear  strange  if  we  recall  the 
purpose  and  result  of  that  work.  As  we  have  seen,  John, 
after  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  was  visited  by  a  deputation  of 
priests  and  Levites  from  Jerusalem,  to  whom  he  bore  for- 
mal witness  that  the  Messiah  had  come,  (John  i.  19-28.) 
Perhaps,  also,  he  pointed  out  Jesus  to  them  in  person.  It 
was  now  a  question  distinctly  before  the  ecclesiastical  rulers, 
Would  they  receive  Jesus  thus  pointed  out  to  them  as  the 
Christ,  or  reject  Him  ?  As  they  took  no  steps  to  seek 
Him,  thus  showing  their  disregard  of  the  Baptist's  testi- 
mony, He  Himself  will  bring  the  matter  to  an  open  and 
speedy  test.  At  the  first  feast  after  this  testimony,  He  ap- 
pears in  the  temple,  and  there  assumes  authority  as  the 
Son  of  God,  to  purge  it.  He  also  works  miracles,  and 
many  believed  in  Him  as  one  sent  from  God.  Still  the 
ecclesiastical  rulers  did  not  receive  Him.  He  therefore 
begins  to  baptize  ;  but  they  did  not  come  to  His  baptism  ; 
and  the  gathering  to  Him  of  the  people  only  augments 
their  hostility,  and  they  seek  to  cast  impediments  in  His 
way  by  sowing  dissensions  between  His  disciples  and  those 
of  John.  As  they  will  not  come  to  receive  baptism,  no 
further  step  could  be  taken  in  the  regular  development  of 
His  Messianic  work.  He  therefore  ceases  to  baptize,  and 
retires  from  Judea.  Still  the  time  is  not  yet  come  for  Him 
to  begin  His  work  in  Galilee,  for  the  Baptist  is  at  liberty, 
and  through  his  witness  and  labors  the  rulers  may  yet  be 
brought  to  repentance,  and  the  nation  be  saved.  He  will 
wait  till  His  forerunner  has  finished  his  work  in  Judea,  ere 
He  commences  His  work  m  Galilee.    But  John's  ministry 


188  THE  LIFE   OP  OUR  LORD. 

comes  to  a  sudden  and  untimely  end,  (Mark  ix.  13.)  He 
is  shut  up  in  prison,  and  can  bear  no  further  witness.  Once 
more  the  Lord  presents  Himself  in  Jerusalem,  and  works  a 
miracle,  but  is  called  a  blasphemer,  and  His  life  endangered. 
There  is  now  no  place  for  Him  in  Judea.  All  the  labors 
of  the  Baptist,  and  His  own  labors  had  been  unavailing  to 
turn  the  hearts  of  those  in  authority,  and  ensure  His  recep- 
tion as  the  Messiah.  By  their  own  unbelief,  those  who  sat 
in  Moses'  seat,  the  priests  and  Levites,  made  it  impossible 
that  He  could  use  them  in  His  service,  and  continuing  to 
reject  Him,  they  themselves  must  be  rejected.  The  Mo- 
saic institutions  must  be  set  aside,  and  their  priesthood 
cease. 

It  is  here  that  we  find  the  essential  distinction  between 
the  Lord's  work  in  Judea  and  that  in  Galilee.  The  former 
had  reference  to  the  Jewish  people  in  their  corporate  capa- 
city, a  nation  in  covenant  with  God ;  and  aimed  to  produce 
in  them  that  sense  of  sin,  and  that  true  repentance,  which 
were  indispensable  to  His  reception.  The  latter  was  based 
upon  the  fact  that  the  ecclesiastical  rulers  of  the  Jews  would 
not  receive  Him,  and  had  sought  to  kill  Him,  and  that 
therefore,  if  they  persisted  in  their  wickedness,  God  was 
about  to  cast  them  out  of  their  peculiar  relations  to  Him, 
and  establish  a  church,  of  which  the  elect  of  all  nations 
should  be  members,  (Matt.  viii.  11,  12.)  Going  into 
Galilee,  the  Lord  will  gather  there  a  body  of  disciples,  who 
shall  bear  witness  to  Him  before  the  nation,  but  who,  if 
this  testimony  is  unavailing,  shall  serve  as  the  foundations 
of  the  new  institutions  resting  upon  the  New  Covenant. 
Thus  the  departure  from  Judea  into  Galilee  does  not  imply 
that  the  Lord  regarded  this  rejection  of  Himself  by  the 
Jews  as  final,  and  that  nothing  remained  but  to  lay  new 
foundations  and  choose  a  new  priesthood.  He  will  leave  Ju- 
dea, but  after  a  time  He  will  return.  His  work  in  Galilee 
still  has  reference  to  national  salvation,  through  the  taith  of 


CHARACTER   OP  THE  MINISTRY   IN   GALILEE.  189 

those  who  should  believe  on  Him  there.  If,  however,  the 
nation  will  not  hear  them,  then  from  among  them  He  will 
select  those  who  shall  take  the  place  of  the  priesthood  of 
the  Aaronic  line,  and  be  builders  and  rulers  under  Him,  the 
Stone  which  the  builders  had  refused,  but  now  become  the 
Head  of  the  corner. 

Thus,  it  will  not  appear  strange  that  the  Synoptists, 
writing  after  all  these  events  had  developed  themselves, 
should  pass  over  in  silence  the  Lord's  Judean  work.  Re- 
garded in  its  relations  to  the  Christian  Church,  its  mention 
was  comparatively  unimportant ;  and  they  could  well  com- 
mence  their  narratives  with  that  work  in  Galilee,  which, 
looking  forward  to  the  future,  was  already  developing  itself 
so  widely  and  powerfully.1  It  was  comparatively  of  little 
moment  that  their  readers  should  know,  in  detail,  that  the 
Lord  first  began  His  labors  in  Judea,  and  that,  after  a  few 
months,  He  was  compelled  to  abandon  them,  through  the 
enmity  of  the  rulers ;  since  all  knew  that  He  was  finally 
rejected  by  them,  and  suffered  death  at  their  hands.  But 
the  Galilean  work  was  of  the  highest  moment,  as  it  marked 
where  the  dividing  line  began  between  the  old  and  the 
new,  between  Moses  and  Christ.  And  this  may  also  ex- 
plain their  silence  in  respect  to  the  feasts  which  the  Lord  at- 
tended while  in  Galilee.    Any  transient  work  at  Jerusalem, 


1  Some  find  difficulty  in  reconciling  the  Synoptists  with  John,  because  the 
former  say  that  Jesus  went  to  Capernaum  to  begin  His  ministry  after  the  im- 
prisonment of  the  Baptist,  while  John  relates  two  visit*  to  Capernaum  and 
Galilee  before  this  imprisonment.  (John  ii.  12;  iv.  46.)  But  these  visits 
they  might  well  pass  over  in  silence,  as  not  at  all  affecting  the  general  fact 
that  the  field  of  labor  during  the  first  part  of  His  ministry  was  Judea,  and  not 
Galilee.  The  first  of  these  visits  to  Galilee  was  before  the  first  Passover,  and 
of  short  duration  ;  the  second  was  after  the  work  in  Judea  had  been  inter- 
rupted, and  was  also  brief,  and  neither  of  them  was  marked  by  public  la- 
bors. He  began  to  preach  in  Galilee  only  when  He  had  ended  for  the  time 
His  work  in  Judea,  and  this  was  after  th»  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist  and 
the  attempt  of  the  Jews  on  His  own  life.    (John  v.  18.) 


190  THE   LIFE   OF   OUB  LORD. 

addressing  itself  especially  to  the  hierarchy,  had  no  impor- 
tant bearing  upon  the  great  result. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  mention  of  the  Lord's  ministry 
in  Judea  by  John,  and  his  silence  respecting  much  that 
was  done  in  Galilee,  follow  from  the  special  purpose  of  his 
Gospel,  which  is  to  show  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God,  (xx.  31 ;)  and,  as  incidental,  how  faith  on  the  one 
side  and  unbelief  on  the  other  were  developed  among 
those  who,  from  time  to  time,  were  brought  into  contact 
with  Him.  He  draws  no  sharp  line  of  distinction  between 
what  Jesus  did  in  Judea  and  in  Galilee,  nor  makes  any 
particular  mention  of  John's  imprisonment.  He  selects 
from  the  many  acts  of  His  life  such  as  will  best  answer  his 
purpose,  wherever  they  took  place,  and  the  events  seem, 
for  the  most  part,  to  be  narrated  that  he  may  give  the  dis- 
courses that  stand  in  connection  with  them.1  It  is  thus 
incidentally  and  not  formally,  that  he  mentions  what  was 
done  in  Judea,  and  it  is  only  by  a  careful  comparison  of  his 
narrative  with  those  of  the  Synoptists,  that  we  reach  our 
general  result. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  Galilee  had  been  spoken 
of  several  centuries  before  the  Saviour's  birth,  by  the 
prophet  Isaiah,  (ix.  1,  2,)  as  that  part  of  the  Holy  Land  to 
be  especially  blessed  by  His  labors.  It  had  been  the  part 
least  esteemed,  not  only  because  in  the  division  of  the 
kingdom  it  was  joined  to  Israel  in  opposition  to  Judah,  but 
as  also  especially  exposed  to  foreign  invasion,  and  which 
had  in  fact  been  repeatedly  conquered.  Here  was  the 
greatest  admixture  of  foreign  elements,  the  natural  result 
of  these  conquests,  and  hence  the  name,  "  Galilee  of  the 
Gentiles."  The  prophet  mentions  the  two  tribes  of  Zebu- 
Ion  and  Napthali  as  peculiarly  despised;    and  within  the 

1  Compare  the  visit  of  Nicodemus,  the  incident  at  Jacob's  well,  the  visit 
to  the  feast,  (v.  1,)  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  the  visit  at  the  Feast  of 
Dedication,  and  many  others. 


CHARACTER   OP  THE  MINISTRY   IN   GALILEE.  191 

bounds  of  the  first  was  Nazareth,  and  within  the  bounds 
of  the  second  was  Capernaum.  How  wonderfully  this 
prophecy,  so  dark  in  its  literal  interpretation,  was  fulfilled, 
the  history  of  the  Lord's  ministry  shows.  His  own  in  Judea 
and  Jerusalem  would  not  walk  in  His  light,  and  thus  it  was 
that,  in  "  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles,  the  people  which  sat  in 
darkness  saw  great  light." 

To  this  prediction  of  Isaiah,  the  Evangelist  Matthew, 
according  to  his  custom,  calls  the  attention  of  his  readers, 
and  affirms  that  in  Galilee,  thus  prophetically  marked  out, 
the  preaching  of  the  Lord  actually  began,  (iv.  17.)  "From 
that  time,"  that  is,  from  the  imprisonment  of  John,  and  the 
departure  into  Galilee,  that  immediately  followed  it, "  Jesus 
began  to  preach,"  <fcc.  u  His  earlier  appearance  in  Judea, 
though  full  of  striking  incidents  and  proofs  of  His  divine 
legation,  was  preliminary  to  His  ministry  or  preaching, 
properly  so  called,  which  now  began." l  Luke  seems  plainly 
to  intimate  that  the  first  teaching  of  the  Lord  in  the  syna- 
gogues was  that  which  he  records  at  Nazareth.  That  His 
enemies  at  Jerusalem  regarded  His  labors  as  first  taking 
positive  form  and  character  in  Galilee,  appears  from  their 
accusation,  (Luke  xxiii.  5,)  "  He  stirreth  up  the  people, 
teaching  throughout  all  Jewry,  beginning  from  Galilee  to 
this  place."  (See  also  the  words  of  Peter,  Acts  x.  37, 
u  That  word  which  was  published  throughout  all  Judea, 
and  began  from  Galilee.")  And  as  God  had  ordered  that 
Galilee  should  be  the  chief  theatre  of  His  teaching,  so  He 
providentially  overruled  the  political  arrangements  of  the 
time,  that  there  He  could  labor  without  hindrance,  since 
the  tetrarch  Herod  Antipas  did  not  trouble  himself  con- 
cerning any  ecclesiastical  movements  that  did  not  disturb 
the  public  peace.  And  here,  also,  the  people  were  less 
under  the  influence  of  the  hierarchy,  and  more  open  to 
His  words. 

*  Alexander  in  loco ;  so  Greswell,  ii.  274 ;  Stier  on  Luke  iv.  18. 


192  THE  LIFE  OF   OUE  LORD. 

Thus  the  silence  of  the  Synoptists,  respecting  the  work 
of  Jesus  in  Judea,  is  satisfactorily  explained ;  and  we  also 
6ee  why  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist  is  made  so  promi- 
nent in  their  narratives.  It  marks  the  time  when  He  left 
Judea  for  Galilee,  and  is  thus  a  great  turning  point  in 
His  ministry.  So  long  as  John  was  free  to  prosecute  his 
work  of  calling  the  nation  to  repentance,  He  could  take  no 
steps  looking  forward  to  the  establishment  of  new  institu- 
tions. He  could  not  begin  to  preach  or  teach  in  Galilee. 
But  John  in  prison  could  no  more  prepare  His  way,  could 
no  more  testify  of  Him  to  the  nation,  or  administer  the 
baptism  of  repentance.  The  voice  of  the  forerunner  thus 
silenced,  Jesus,  departing  to  Galilee,  can  there  begin  Him- 
self to  preach,  and  to  gather  disciples,  and  prepare  them 
for  their  future  work. 

As  the  primary  object  of  the  ministry  in  Galilee  was  to 
gather  disciples,  the  Lord  directs  His  teachings  and  works 
to  that  end.  Hence  His  visits  to  all  parts  of  the  land,  His 
use  of  the  synagogues  for  preaching,  His  teachings  in  the 
streets,  in  the  fields,  upon  the  sea-shore,  wherever  the  peo- 
ple gather  to  Him.  He  speaks  to  all,  that  whosoever  has 
ears  to  hear  may  hear.  Hence,  also,  His  readiness  to  heal 
all  who  may  come  unto  Him,  that  the  faith  which  the  word 
could  not  draw  forth  might  be  drawn  forth  by  the  work. 
Thus  by  degrees  He  gathered  around  Him  the  most  spirit- 
ually minded  and  receptive  of  the  Galileans,  and  of  the 
adjacent  regions.  From  these  He  chooses  a  small  body 
whom  He  keeps  near  Himself,  and  to  whom  He  explains 
what  is  obscure  in  His  public  discourses,  as  they  are  able  to 
hear ;  and  these,  after  He  had  instructed  them,  He  sends 
forth  to  be  witnesses  to  the  people  at  large. 

This  work  of  Jesus  in  Galilee,  gathering  and  educating 
His  disciples,  continued  from  the  Passover  of  781  till  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  in  782,  or  a  period  of  about  one  year 
and  six  months.    The  death  of  the  Baptist,  which  we  place 


THE  BAPTIST'S  IMPRISONMENT.  193 

in  the  spring  of  782,  had  an  important  bearing  npon  His 
labors,  and  divides  this  Galilean  ministry  into  two  parts, 
which  are  easily  distinguishable  from  each  other.  The 
grounds  of  this  distinction  will  be  noted  hereafter.  Our 
present  period  ends  with  the  Baptist's  death.  The  impor- 
tant events  that  mark  its  progress  will  be  noticed  as  we 
proceed. 


April,  781.    a.  d.  28. 

Hearing  whilst  in  Jerusalem  of  the  imprisonment  of  Matt.  iv.  12. 

John  the  Baptist,  the  Lord  leaves  Judea  and  goes  into  Mark  i.  14,  15. 

Galilee  to  begin  His  ministry  there.     In  His  progress  He  Luke  iv.  14, 15. 

comes  to  Nazareth  and  teaches  in  its  synagogue.     His  LuKxiv.  16-82. 
words  enraging  the  people,  and  His  life  being  in  danger, 

He  leaves  Nazareth,  and  going  to  Capernaum  there  takes  Matt,  i v.  12-17. 
up  his  abode. 

An  important  and  difficult  point  here  meets  us :  When 
was  John  imprisoned  ? 

We  first  inquire  what  data  we  have  bearing  upon  it, 
other  than  the  statements  of  the  Evangelists.  In  Josephus ' 
we  find  mention  made  of  the  imprisonment  of  John  by 
Herod  the  Tetrarch,  at  the  castle  of  Machaerus,  where  he 
was  subsequently  put  to  death.  This  imprisonment  and 
death  of  the  Baptist  Josephus  connects  with  the  defeat  of 
Herod  in  battle  by  A  rot  as,  king  of  Arabia ;  the  defeat 
being  regarded  by  many  of  the  Jews  as  a  just  punishment 
sent  by  God  upon  Herod  for  this  act  of  injustice  and  cruel- 
ty. He  does  not  mention  that  John  reproved  Herod  for 
his  marriage  of  Herodias,  and  seems  to  place  the  arrest 
solely  on  political  grounds. 

It  appears,  from  these  statements  of  Josephus  respect- 
ing the  origin  and  history  of  the  war,  that  the  death  of 

I  Antiq.,  18.  5. 1. 
0 


194  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD. 

John  was  before  the  defeat  of  Herod  by  Aretas,  and  that 
this  defeat  was  before  the  death  of  Tiberius.  This  emperor 
died  in  March,  790.  It  was  also  probably  before  the  death 
of  Philip  the  Tetrarch.1  Thus  we  reach  only  the  indefinite 
result,  that  John  was  beheaded  before,  or  in  787.  And  we 
have  no  data  in  Josephus  to  come  to  any  more  exact  con- 
clusion. Some  have  sought  to  obtain  a  more  definite  re- 
sult by  determining  the  time  when  Herod  made  that 
journey  to  Rome  in  which  he  met  Herodias,  but  without 
success. 

If,  then,  only  the  general  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from 
the  statements  of  Josephus,  that  John  was  put  to  death  be- 
fore 787,  let  us  turn  to  the  Evangelists.  We  learn  from 
John,  (iil  23,  24,)  that  while  Jesus  was  baptizing  in  Judea, 
John  was  baptizing  at  ^Enon.  This  was  during  the  sum- 
mer of  780.  Jesus  discontinued  His  baptismal  work,  prob- 
ably in  December  of  that  year,  and  retired  into  Galilee, 
We  have  already  seen  that  John  continued  to  prosecute  his 
work  later.  In  John  (iv.  1)  there  is  no  assertion  that  the 
Baptist's  work  had  ended,  but  rather  a  plain  intimation  that 
it  was  still  in  progress,  for  there  is  a  comparison  between 
them,  and  the  result  is  that  Jesus  is  baptizing  more  than 
John.*  We  may  then  conclude  that  John  was  still  at 
liberty,  and  engaged  in  his  work  about  the  beginning  of 
December,  780. 

The  grounds  upon  which  the  many  harmonists  and 
commentators,  who  make  the  cessation  of  the  Lord's  bap- 
tismal work  contemporaneous  with  John's  imprisonment, 
reach  this  conclusion,  are  various  and  by  no  means  con- 
cordant. But  most  agree  that  the  Lord  was  afraid  of  a 
like  imprisonment.  Thus  Lightfoot,  on  John  iv.  4,  says : 
"  Herod  had  imprisoned  John  Baptist  under  pretence  of 
his  growing  too  popular.    Our  Saviour,  understanding  this, 

1  See  Greswell,  iil  414.  >  Wioeeler,  224. 


THE   BAPTIST'S   IMPRISONMENT.  195 

and  that  the  Sanhedrim  had  heard  of  the  increase  of  His 
disciples,  withdrew  too  from  Judea  into  Galilee,  that  He 
might  be  more  remote  from  that  kind  of  thunderbolt  St. 
John  had  been  struck  with."  But  the  arrest  of  John  was 
not  because  of  his  baptism,  but  because  of  his  reproof  of 
Herod,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  Pharisees 
had  any  thing  to  do  with  it.  That  Jesus  did  not  fear  any 
arrest  from  Herod,  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  He  now 
leaves  a  province  under  Roman  rule  to  go  into  one  ruled 
over  by  Herod  himself,  and  moreover,  takes  up  His  abode 
in  the  near  vicinity  of  his  capital.  Nor,  as  has  been  already 
shown,  was  He  in  any  bodily  danger  from  the  Pharisees. 
80  long  as  Jesus  simply  permitted  his  disciples  to  baptize 
He  was  guilty  of  no  crime,  although  the  validity  and  value 
of  His  baptism  might  be  denied. 

Greswell,  (ii.  212,)  who  admits  that  the  words  of  the 
Evangelist  imply,  that  when  Jesus  set  out  on  His  return  to 
Galilee,  John  was  not  yet  cast  into  prison,  (John  iv.  1,) 
supposes  that  before  He  reached  there  he  was  imprisoned. 
This,  however,  contradicts  the  Synoptists,  who  say  that 
Jesus  was  in  Judea  when  He  heard  of  John's  imprisonment, 
and  that  this  was  the  cause  of  his  departure  into  Galilee, 
(Matt.  iv.  12.) 

If  we  compare  the  account  of  what  followed  the  return 
of  Jesus  to  Galilee,  as  given  by  John  (iv.  43-54)  with  that 
given  by  the  Synoptists,  we  find  full  proof  that  they  refer 
to  different  periods.  According  to  the  former,  Jesus  went 
to  Galilee,  not  to  begin  public  labors,  but  to  find  retire- 
ment. The  prophet,  as  a  rule,  having  no  honor  in  his  own 
country,  He  might  well  hope  to  pass  the  time  there  in  seclu- 
sion, without  attracting  public  attention,  till  the  issue  of 
John's  ministry  was  determined.  He  did  not  indeed  find 
the  privacy  which  He  sought,  because  the  Galileans  had 
been  eye-witnesses  of  what  He  had  done  at  Jerusalem,  and 
were  favorably  inclined  toward  Him.    Very  soon  after  His 


196  THE   LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

return  the  nobleman  from  Capernaum  sought  His  aid ;  but 
aside  from  this,  there  is  no  indication  that  He  performed 
any  miracles  or  engaged  in  any  teaching.  No  disciples  are 
spoken  of  as  with  Him,  nor  any  crowds  of  people.  Nor 
when  He  goes  up  to  the  feast  (v.  1)  does  He  appear  to  have 
been  attended  by  any  disciples.  On  the  other  hand,  accord- 
ing to  the  Synoptists,  (Matt.  iv.  12-25  ;  Mark,  i.  14-21 ; 
Luke,  iv.  14,  15),  so  soon  as  He  heard  of  John's  imprison- 
ment He  began  His  labors  in  Galilee,  very  early  gathering 
again  His  disciples,  and  working  miracles,  and  teaching  in 
all  the  synagogues.  His  fame  spread  immediately  through 
the  whole  region,  and  wherever  He  went  crowds  followed 
Him. 

The  manner  in  which  John  relates  what  the  Lord  did  in 
Galilee  up  to  the  time  of  the  feast,  (v.  1,)  shows  that  he  re- 
garded Judea  as  the  proper  field  of  His  labors  during  this 
period,  and  His  works  in  Galilee  as  only  exceptional.  Only 
two  miracles  were  wrought  in  Galilee  during  this  period, 
and  both  at  Cana,  (John  ii.  1  ;  iv.  46.)  Of  the  first,  the 
Evangelist  says  :  "  This  beginning  of  miracles  did  Jesus  in 
Cana  of  Galilee,  and  manifested  forth  His  glory."  Of  the 
second :  "  This  is  again  the  second  miracle  that  Jesus  did, 
when  He  was  come  out  of  Judea  into  Galilee."  Both  these 
miracles  were  wrought  under  peculiar  circumstances,  and 
for  special  ends,  not  in  the  ordinary  course  of  His  ministry. 
Those  wrought  by  Him  in  Jerusalem  at  the  first  Passover 
(John  ii.  23,  compare  iii.  2)  are  merely  alluded  to,  although 
they  seem  to  have  been  of  a  striking  character  ;  but  these 
are  specified  as  wrought  by  Jesus  coming  out  of  Judea,  the 
proper  place  of  His  ministry,  into  Galilee  where  His  minis- 
try had  not  yet  begun,  John  being  not  yet  imprisoned.1 

We  thus  find  confirmatory  evidence  that  the  Baptist 
was  not  imprisoned  till  after  December,  780.     But  on  the 

1  See  Wieseler,  271,  note  2. 


THE  BAPTIST'S   IMPRISONMENT.  197 

other  hand,  this  imprisonment  was  before  the  feast,  (John, 
v.  1.)  The  proof  of  this  we  find  in  the  words  of  the  Lord 
spoken  at  this  feast,  (v.  35,)  referring  to  John,  "  He  was  a 
burning  and  a  shining  light,  and  ye  were  willing  for  a  season 
to  rejoice  in  his  light."  Here  John's  work  is  spoken  of  as 
something  past.  "  He  was,"  and  "  ye  were  willing  for  a 
season."  Alford  remarks,  "  This  '  was,'  17V,  shows,  as  Stier 
rightly  observes,  that  John  was  now  cast  into  prison,  if  not 
executed."  Tholuck  says,  " '  He  was,'  implies  that  John 
had  already  left  the  stage."  But  the  feast  at  which  these 
words  were  spoken,  we  have  already  identified  as  the  Pass- 
over of  781.  Some  time,  then,  between  December,  780,  and 
April,  781,  the  Baptist  was  imprisoned. 

But  we  may  fix  the  time  still  more  definitely.  When 
Jesus  beard  of  John's  imprisonment  He  was  in  Judea,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that,  after  He  gave  up  bap- 
tizing  and  retired  into  Galilee,  He  came  again  into  Judea 
till  the  feast,  (v.  1.)  It  was  at  this  time  (April,  781) 
that  He  heard  at  Jerusalem  of  John's  imprisonment,  to 
which,  as  we  just  saw,  He  alluded  in  His  address  to  the 
Jews.  We  may  then  place  this  event  a  little  before  this 
feast,  say  in  March,  781. 

St.  John,  who  has  been  our  sole  informant  in  all  relating 
to  the  work  of  the  Lord  in  Judea,  narrates  nothing  that 
occurred  between  the  feast  (v.  1)  and  the  feeding  of  the 
6,000,  (vi.  1 ,)  an  interval  of  a  year.  We  must  therefore  turn 
to  the  Synoptists,  whose  narrative  commences  at  this  point. 

By  Matthew  (iv.  12)  it  is  said  that  Jesus,  "when  He 
heard  that  John  was  cast  into  prison,  departed  into  Galilee, 
and  leaving  Nazareth  came  and  dwelt  in  Capernaum." 
This  implies  that  on  leaving  Judea  He  went  first  to  Naza- 
reth and  afterward  to  Capernaum.  Mark  (i.  14)  speaks 
only  in  general  terms  of  His  coming  into  Galilee.  Luke 
(iv.  14,  15)  gives  a  brief  outline  of  His  ministry  there,  that 
He  taught  in  their  synagogues,  that  His  feme  spread  abroad, 


198  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

and  that  He  was  glorified  of  all.  It  is  not  wholly  clear 
whether  this  Evangelist  here  gives  by  anticipation  a  sum- 
mary of  His  work  and  its  results,  or  means  to  state  that 
Jesus  began  preaching  in  the  synagogues  of  Galilee  pre- 
vious to  His  arrival  at  Nazareth,  and  was  everywhere  favor- 
ably received.  The  latter  is  in  itself  not  improbable,  but 
the  former  is  most  in  keeping  with  the  narrative.  Some 
have  supposed  that  He  went  to  Nazareth  by  way  of  Ca- 
pernaum, and  that  in  the  latter  city  He  wrought  some  mir- 
acles which  are  not  directly  mentioned,  but  to  which  He  is 
thought  to  allude  when  He  speaks  at  Nazareth  of  works 
which  He  had  done  at  Capernaum,  (Luke  iv.  23.)1 

But  it  is  not  impossible,  as  said  by  Ebrard,  that  He 
refers  to  the  earlier  healing  of  the  nobleman's  son,  who  was 
sick  at  Capernaum,  though  Jesus  Himself  was  at  Cana. 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  manner  in  which  the  teaching  of 
the  Lord  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum  and  His  miracles 
are  spoken  of,  (Mark  i.  21-34  ;  Luke  iv.  31-42,)  as  if  He 
then  for  the  first  time  began  His  labors  there. 

As  Matthew  (xiii.  53-58)  and  Mark  (vi.  1-6)  both  speak 
of  a  visit  of  Jesus  to  Nazareth,  but  apparently  at  a  later 
period,  it  is  a  question  whether  this  visit  can  be  identified 
with  that  mentioned  by  Luke,  (iv.  16-30,)  or  whether  they 
are  to  be  regarded  as  distinct.*  There  are  several  points  of 
likeness,  but  not  more  than  would  naturally  exist  in  two 
visits  made  under  such  peculiar  circumstances.  In  both 
His  words  excite  the  astonishment,  not  unmixed  with  envy, 
of  His  fellow-townsmen  ;  and  recalling  to  mind  His  origin, 
and  His  education  amongst  themselves,  and  His  family, 
whose  members  they  knew,  they  are  offended  at  His  pro- 
phetic claims.   In  both  He  repeats  the  proverb,  so  strikingly 

»  Krafi%  Alford,  Riggenbach. 

*  Opinions  of  recent  inquirers  are  about  equally  divided.  In  favor  of 
their  identity  are  Lange,  Alford,  Bucher,  Friedlieb,  Liechtenstein ;  against  it, 
Meyer,  Stier,  Robinson,  Tischendorf,  Wieseler,  KrafFt,  Townsend,  Ellicott. 


JESUS   REJECTED   AT   NAZARETH.  199 

applicable,  that  "  a  prophet  is  not  without  honor  save  in 
his  own  country ;"  but  with  this  difference,  that  at  the  sec- 
ond visit  He  adds,  with  apparent  reference  to  His  brothers 
and  sisters,  "and  among  his  own  kin  and  in  his  own 
house."  On  the  other  hand,  the  points  of  difference  are 
more  numerous,  and  more  plainly  marked.  In  the  former 
visit  He  is  alone  ;  in  the  latter  He  is  accompanied  by  His 
disciples,  (Mark  vi.  1.)  In  the  former  He  is  attacked  by 
the  enraged  populace,  and  escapes  through  supernatural 
aid  the  threatened  death ;  in  the  latter,  though  He  mar- 
velled at  their  unbelief,  He  continues  there  for  a  time,  and 
heals  a  few  sick  folk.  In  the  former,  "  passing  through 
the  midst  of  them  He  went  His  way,  and  came  to  Caper- 
naum, a  city  of  Galilee  ; "  in  the  latter  He  "  went  round 
about  the  villages  teaching."  The  mention  of  the  healing 
of  the  sick  by  Mark  clearly  shows  the  visits  to  have  been 
distinct,  for  it  could  not  have  taken  place  before  His  first 
teaching  in  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath,  and  immediately 
afterward  He  was  obliged  to  flee  from  their  rage. 

The  wrath  of  the  people,  so  unprovoked,  and  their  ef- 
fort to  kill  Him,  seem  sufficiently  to  justify  the  opinion  of 
Nathanael  in  regard  to  Nazareth.  From  this  incident  it 
is  plain  that  they  were  fierce  and  cruel,  and  ready  from 
mere  envy  to  imbrue  their  hands  in  the  blood  of  one  who 
had  lived  among  them,  a  neighbor  and  friend,  all  His  life. 
It  is  not  improbable,  however,  that  they  may  long  have 
been  conscious  that,  though  dwelling  among  them,  He  was 
not  of  them,  and  thus  a  secret  feeling  of  dislike  and  ill-will 
have  been  slumbering  in  their  hearts.  This  is  the  only 
instance  recorded  of  the  Lord's  reading  in  a  synagogue, 
and  He  may  have  been  asked  so  to  do  as  having  been  for 
so  many  years  a  member  of  the  congregation,  or  because 
of  the  reputation  He  had  already  acquired.  Elsewhere  He 
preached  in  the  synagogues,  permission  being  everywhere 


200  THE  LIFE   OF  OUE  LORD. 

given  Him,  apparently  in  virtue  of  His  prophetic  claims. 
(Compare  Acts  xiii.  15.) 

The  city  of  Nazareth,  being  built  upon  the  side  of  a  steep 
hill,  presents  several  precipices  down  which  a  person  might 
be  cast.  That  which  has  for  many  years  been  pointed  out 
as  the  place  where  the  attempt  was  made  on  the  Lord's 
life,  and  called  the  Mount  of  Precipitation,  lies  some  two 
miles  from  the  village.  It  is  a  conspicuous  object  from  the 
plain  of  Esdraelon,  which  it  overlooks.  Its  distance  from 
the  village  is  a  sufficient  proof  that  it  cannot  have  been  the 
real  scene  of  the  event.  The  cliff  which  travellers  have 
generally  fixed  upon  as  best  answering  to  the  narrative 
lies  just  back  of  the  Maronite  church,  and  is  some  thirty  or 
forty  feet  in  height.1 

A  chronological  datum  has  been  found  by  Bengel  in  the 
fact  that  the  passage  of  Isaiah  read  by  the  Lord  (Luke  iv. 
18,  19)  was  that  appointed  to  be  read  on  the  morning  of 
the  great  day  of  Atonement.'  But  it  is  by  no  means  cer- 
tain that  such  was  the  order  at  this  time  ;  nor  does  it  ap- 
pear whether  Jesus  read  the  passage  appointed  for  the  day, 
or  that  to  which  He  opened  intentionally  or  under  divine 
direction.  Some  of  the  fathers,  from  v.  19,  where  mention 
is  made  of  "  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,"  inferred  that 
His  ministry  continued  but  a  single  year.  That  no  definite 
period  of  time  is  meant  sufficiently  appears,  however,  from 
the  context,  (Is.  lxi.  2.) 

Thus  rejected  at  Nazareth,  Jesus  departs  to  Capernaum. 
"We  know  not  whether  private  and  personal  reasons  had 
any  influence  in  the  selection  of  this  city  as  the  central 
point  of  His  labors  in  Galilee.    Some,  as  Lightfoot  and 

1  Robinson,  ii.  235 ;  Ritter,  Theil  xvi.  744.  Van  De  Velde,  Journey,  ii. 
S85,  thinks  that  this  cannot  be  the  place,  and  supposes  that  the  precipice 
where  the  Saviour's  life  was  threatened,  has  crumbled  away  from  the  ef- 
fect of  earthquakes  and  other  causes. 

3  See  also  McKnight,  Har.  in  loco. 


RESIDENCE   AT  CAPERNAUM.  201 

Ewald,  have  supposed  that  Joseph  had  possessions  there, 
and  that  the  family,  the  Lord's  mother  and  brethren,  were 
now  residing  there,  (John  ii.  12.)  More  probably,  in  the 
selection  of  Capernaum  He  was  determined  chiefly  by  its 
local  position  and  relations.  Lying  upon  the  sea  of  Galilee 
and  the  great  roads  from  Egypt  to  Syria  running  through 
it,  and  in  the  direct  line  from  Jerusalem  to  Damascus,1  it 
gave  Him  such  facilities  of  intercourse  with  men  as  He 
could  not  have  had  in  secluded  Nazareth.  Not  only  could 
He  readily  visit  all  parts  of  Galilee,  but  by  means  of  the 
lake  He  had  ready  access  also  to  the  region  upon  the  other 
side,  and  to  the  towns  both  north  and  south  in  the  valley 
of  the  Jordan.  From  it  he  could  easily  make  circuits  into 
Galilee  on  the  west,  into  Trachonitis  on  the  north,  and  into 
Decapolis  and  Perea  on  the  east  and  south.  Besides  this 
local  fitness  for  His  work,  it  was  also  the  residence  of  Simon 
and  Andrew,  and  but  a  little  way  from  Bethsaida,  the  city 
of  Philip. 

It  does  not  appear  from  the  Gospels  whether  the  Lord 
had  a  house  of  His  own  at  Capernaum,  or  dwelt  with  some 
relative  or  disciple.  His  own  words,  (Matt.  viii.  20,)  "  the 
Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  His  head,"  seem  decisive 
that  He  did  not  own  any  dwelling,  but  was  dependent  upon 
others  even  for  a  place  where  to  sleep.  He  is  spoken  of  as 
entering  the  house  of  Peter,  (Matt.  viii.  14,)  and  the  form 
of  expression,  (Mark  ii.  1,)  "  it  was  noised  abroad  that  He 
had  come  home,"  (compare  iii.  19,)  implies  that  He  had  a 
fixed  place  of  abode.  Norton,  in  common  with  many,  sup- 
poses that  He  resided  in  the  house  of  Peter ;  Alexander  (on 
Mark  i.  29)  suggests  that  Peter  may  "  have  opened  a  house 
for  the  convenience  of  his  Lord  and  master  in  the  intervals 
of  His  itinerant  labors."  If,  however,  His  mother  was  now 
living  at  Capernaum,  which  is  by  no  means  certain,  He 

»  RobiMon,  ii.  405;  Bitter,  Theil  xt.  271. 
9* 


202  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB  LORD. 

would  naturally  take  up  His  abode  with  her.  "  The  change 
of  abode,"  says  Alford,  "  seems  to  have  included  the  whole 
family,  except  the  sisters,  who  may  have  been  married  at 
Nazareth."  Gresweli  asserts  that  the  incident  respecting 
the  tribute  money  (Matt.  xvii.  24)  proves  indisputably  that 
He  was  a  legal  inhabitant  of  Capernaum. 

The  sea  of  Galilee  is  formed  by  the  waters  of  the  Jor- 
dan, which  enter  at  the  northern,  and  flow  out  at  the 
southern  extremity.  Its  shape  is  that  of  an  irregular  oval, 
somewhat  broadest  at  the  upper  part,  and  is  about  fourteen 
miles  in  length,  and  six  or  seven  in  width.  The  water  is  clear 
and  sweet,  and  used  for  drinking  by  the  inhabitants  along  its 
shores,  many  of  whom  ascribe  to  it  medicinal  qualities.  It 
is  650  feet  lower  than  the  Mediterranean,  and  probably 
may  fill  the  crater  of  an  extinct  volcano.  The  west  shores 
of  the  lake  are  more  precipitous  than  those  of  the  east. 
Being  surrounded  with  hills,  those  on  the  east  nearly  2,000 
feet  high,  which  are  seamed  with  deep  ravines  down  which 
the  winds  sweep  with  great  violence,  it  is  very  much  ex- 
posed to  sudden  and  furious  storms.1 

Nearly  midway  on  the  western  side  of  the  lake  is  "  the 
land  of  Gennesaret,"  (Matt.  xiv.  34  ;  Mark  vi.  53.)  It  is 
made  by  a  recession  of  the  hills  from  the  shore,  and  forms 
a  segment  of  a  circle,  being  about  four  miles  long  and  three 
broad.  It  begins  on  the  south,  just  above  the  village  of 
Mejdel,  or  Magdala,  and  extends  northward  to  the  point 
where  the  promontory  of  Khan  Minyeh  stretches  down  to 
the  water.  It  is  well  watered,  though  better  in  the  south- 
ern than  in  the  northern  part,  several  fountains  arising  in 
it,  large  and  copious,  and  several  streams  from  the  hills 
westward  pouring  their  waters  through  it  to  the  lake  in 
the  rainy  season.* 

In  or  near  the  land  of  Gennesaret  was  the  city  of  Ca- 

>  See  Stanley,  361 ;  Robinson,  ii.  416 ;  Porter,  ii.  418. 
3  See  Josephus,  War,  8. 10.  8 ;  and  Robinson,  it  402. 


SITE  OP  CAPERNAUM.  203 

pernaum.  The  interest  which  all  feel  in  a  place  which  was 
so  long  the  Lord's  residence,  and  the  central  point  of  His 
labors,  leads  us  to  inquire  with  some  minuteness  respecting 
its  site.  This  has  long  been  the  subject  of  dispute.  Nei- 
ther the  statements  of  the  Evangelists,  nor  of  Josephus,  nor 
of  the  fathers,  are  so  definite  that  we  can  determine  the  exact 
spot ;  and  modern  travellers  who  have  carefully  examined 
all  probable  sites  along  the  lake,  are  by  no  means  agreed  in 
their  conclusions.  All,  therefore,  that  we  can  now  do  is  to 
give  a  summary  of  the  question  as  it  stands  in  the  light  of 
the  most  recent  investigation.  As  Bethsaida  and  Chorazin 
were  adjacent  cities,  joined  with  Capernaum  in  the  same 
high  privileges  and  falling  under  the  same  condemnation, 
(Matt.  xi.  20  ;  Luke  x.  13,)  and  their  sites  are  also  subjects 
of  dispute,  we  shall  embrace  them  in  this  geographical  in- 
quiry. 

It  is  known  from  the  Gospels,  (Matt.  iv.  13,  ix.  1,  xiii.  1 ; 
Mark  ii.  13 ;  John  vl  17,)  that  Capernaum  was  seated  upon 
the  sea-shore,  and  it  appears  from  a  comparison  of  John 
vi.  17  with  Matt.  xiv.  34,  and  Mark  vi.  53,  that  it  was 
either  in  or  near  "  the  land  of  Gennesaret."  More  distinct 
information  is  given  us  by  Josephus,'  who,  speaking  of  the 
plain  of  Gennesaret,  says :  u  It  is  irrigated  by  a  highly  fer- 
tilizing spring,  called  Caphernaum  by  the  people  of  the 
country.  This  some  have  thought  a  vein  of  the  Nile,  from 
its  producing  a  fish  similar  to  the  coracin  of  the  lake  of 
Alexandria."  If,  then,  Capernaum  lay  upon  or  near  the 
plain,  as  all  admit,  the  position  of  this  spring  must  deter- 
mine its  position,  for  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  fountain 
took  its  name  from  the  city,  and  the  two  were  near  each 
other.  But  how  shall  we  determine  which  of  the  several 
fountains  watering  that  plain  is  the  one  in  question  ?  Let 
u-  pass  them  all  in  review,  and  test  them  by  the  description 
of  Josephus. 

«  War,  8.  10.  8. 


204  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LOKD. 

The  southernmost  fountain,  lying  near  the  western  range 
of  hills,  and  a  mile  and  a  half  distant  from  the  lake  shore, 
is  that  known  as  the  Round  Fountain,  from  a  circular  in- 
closure  of  hewn  stones,  and  is  described  by  Robinson  as 
"  forming  an  oval  reservoir  more  than  fifty  feet  in  diam- 
eter ;  the  water  is  perhaps  two  feet  deep,  beautifully  limpid 
and  sweet,  bubbling  up  and  flowing  out  rapidly  in  a  large 
stream  to  water  the  plain  below.  Numerous  small  fish  are 
sporting  in  the  basin."  This,  however,  cannot  be  the  foun- 
tain, as  no  rums  are  to  be  found  around  it.  Robinson,  who 
made  search  for  them,  says,  "  there  was  nothing  that  could 
indicate  that  any  town  or  village  had  ever  occupied  the 
spot."    In  this  opinion  Thomson  concurs. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  claims  of  this  fountain  to  be  the 
fountain  of  Caphernaum  are  strenuously  defended  by  De 
Saulcy,  (ii.  423,)  who  asserts  that  he  found  distinct  traces 
of  the  ruins  of  the  city  upon  the  adjacent  hills.  His  facility, 
however,  in  finding  ruins  is  so  great,  that  his  judgment 
here  needs  corroboration.1 

Aside  from  the  absence  of  all  indications  that  a  city  ever 
stood  near  it,  the  Round  Fountain  would  answer  well  to 
the  description  of  Josephus.  A  large  stream  of  water  flows 
from  it  to  irrigate  the  plain,  and  numerous  fish  are  found 
in  its  basin,  though  it  does  not  appear  that  they  are  of  a 
species  different  from  those  found  in  the  lake.  It  is  not 
clear  how  the  particular  mentioned  by  Josephus  respecting 
the  fountain  of  Caphernaum,  that  it  produced  a  fish  like 
the  coracin  of  the  lake  of  Alexandria,  and  hence  was  sup- 
posed to  be  a  vein  of  the  Nile,  is  to  be  understood.  If  the 
fish  in  the  lake  and  in  the  fountain  were  the  same,  it  is  not 
easy  to  see  why  the  fountain  should  have  been  thought  a 
vein  of  the  Nile.  This  would  then  imply  that  there  was  no 
such  connection  between  the  fountain  and  the  lake  as  to 

*  See  Robinson,  iii.  350. 


SITE   OP   CAPERNAUM.  205 

allow  the  fish  to  pass  and  repass.  The  fish  in  the  fountain 
were  like  those  in  the  lake  of  Alexandria,  and  unlike  those 
in  the  lake  of  Galilee.  This  circumstance  points  to  the 
Round  Fountain,  which  is  too  far  distant  to  allow  "  fish  of 
any  size  to  pass  between  it  and  the  lake."  Robinson,  how- 
ever, draws  directly  the  opposite  inference,  that  the  fish  in 
the  fountain  and  the  lake  were  the  same,  and  that  the  for- 
mer must  have  been  on  the  shore,  so  that  the  fish  "  could 
pass  and  repass  without  difficulty."  As  the  language  of 
Josephus  is  thus  susceptible  of  such  opposite  interpreta- 
tions, no  particular  stress  can  be  laid  upon  this  circum- 
stance. 

Dismissing,  then,  the  claim  of  the  Round  Fountain,  be- 
cause  of  the  absence  of  any  ruins  in  its  neighborhood,  we 
proceed  to  the  next  fountain  which  presents  its  claim. 
This  is  called  Ain  et  Tin,  and  rises  near  Khan  Minyeh,  at 
the  point  where  the  western  hills  approach  the  lake  shore 
at  the  north-eastern  extremity  of  the  plain.  Robinson  thus 
describes  it,  (ii.  403,)  "  Between  the  Khan  and  the  shore  a 
large  fountain  rushes  out  from  beneath  the  rocks,  and  forms 
a  brook  flowing  into  the  lake  a  few  rods  distant.  Near  by 
are  several  other  springs.  Our  guides  said  those  springs 
were  brackish,  but  Burckhardt  describes  the  waters  of  the 
main  source  as  sweet.  Along  the  lake  is  a  tract  of  luxuri- 
ant herbage  occasioned  by  the  springs."  And  elsewhere, 
"  The  lake,  when  full,  as  now,  sets  up  nearly  or  quite  to  the 
fountain."  Thompson  speaks  of  it  as  "  coming  out  close  to 
the  lake  and  on  a  level  with  its  surface,"  and  of  its  waters 
as  not  good  to  drink.  Porter  says :  "  From  the  base  of 
the  cliffy  not  far  from  the  water  line,  springs  a  large  fig 
tree,  which  spreads  its  branches  over  a  fountain  called 
from  this  circumstance  Ain  et  Tin,  'the  Fountain  of  the 
Fig.'"  From  these  descriptions  it  seems  plain  that  this 
cannot  be  the  fountain  spoken  of  by  Josephus.  He  says, 
'*  the  plain  is  irrigated  by  a  highly  fertilizing  spring  called 


206  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD. 

Caphernaum."  The  fact  that  Ain  et  Tin  lies  close  to  the 
lake,  and  almost  upon  a  level  with  it,  makes  it  impossible 
that  its  waters  could  ever  have  been  used  for  purposes  of 
irrigation.  "  It  is  very  improbable,"  says  Norton,  "  that 
Josephus  would  have  spoken  in  the  terms  which  he  uses  of 
this  latter  fountain,  the  fertilizing  effects  of  which  are  so 
confined."  That  the  few  yards  or  rods  lying  between  it 
and  the  shore  should  be  watered  and  fertilized,  is  unim- 
portant. Nor  are  there  any  ruins  of  importance  near 
this  fountain,  such  as  would  naturally  mark  the  site  of  a 
city  like  Capernaum.  They  are  thus  spoken  of  by  Robin- 
son :  "  A  few  rods  south  of  the  khan  and  fountain  is  a  low 
mound  or  swell,  with  ruins  occupying  a  considerable  cir- 
cumference. The  few  remains  seemed  to  be  mostly  dwell- 
ings of  no  very  remote  date,  but  there  was  not  enough  to 
make  out  anything  with  certainty."  Upon  his  second 
journey  the  ruins  appeared  to  him  more  extensive  (hi.  345) : 
"  The  remains  are  strewed  around  in  shapeless  heaps,  but 
are  much  more  considerable  and  extensive  than  my  former 
impressions  had  led  me  to  anticipate.  Indeed,  there  are 
here  remains  enough  not  only  to  warrant,  but  to  require 
the  hypothesis  of  a  large  ancient  place."  Thomson  (i.  545) 
on  the  contrary  speaks  of  "  the  few  foundations  near  Khan 
Minyeh  as  not  adequate  to  answer  the  demands  of  history. 
No  one  would  think  of  them  if  he  had  not  a  theory  to 
maintain  which  required  them  to  represent  Capernaum." 
Porter  (ii.  430)  speaks  of  "  many  vestiges  of  ruins  between 
the  fountain  and  the  shore,  but  it  requires  a  careful  scru- 
tiny to  find  them."  Bonar  (437)  says:  "The  ruins  to  the 
south  of  the  Khan  on  a  small  rising  ground  are  inconsid- 
erable, so  much  so  that  we  should  not  have  noticed  them 
had  not  our  attention  been  called  to  them.  No  large 
town  surely  stood  here,  else  it  would  have  left  some  traces 
of  itself."  These  differing  and  somewhat  conflicting  state- 
ments show  at  least  that,  whatever  may  be  the   cause, 


SITE    OF   CAPERNAUM.  207 

whether  by  the  transportation  of  the  stones  to  Tiberias  or 
elsewhere,  as  said  by  Robinson,  or  as  the  more  direct  re- 
sult of  the  doom  spoken  against  it,  almost  all  traces  of  the 
city,  if  it  stood  here,  have  disappeared. 

I£  then,  neither  the  Round  Fountain  nor  that  of  Ain  et 
Tin,  answers  to  the  description  of  Josephus,  and  are  the 
only  fountains  lying  in  the  plain,  we  must  seek  it  away 
from  the  plain,  and  yet  so  near  it  that  its  waters  may  irri- 
gate its  fields.  Such  a  one  Thomson  thinks  he  finds  about 
15  minutes  north  of  Khan  Minyeh,  and  which  is  called  Et- 
Tabiga.  The  grounds  of  his  opinion  will  be  best  shown  by 
some  quotations  from  Robinson  and  Porter.  In  going 
northward  along  the  shore  from  Khan  Minyeh,  says  Rob- 
inson (iii.  345),  "we  struck  up  over  the  rocky  and  precipitous 
point  of  the  hill  above  the  fountain,  toward  the  northeast. 
There  is  no  passage  along  its  base,  which  is  washed  by  the 
waters  of  the  lake.  A  path  has  been  cut  in  ancient  times 
along  the  rock,  some  twenty  feet  above  the  water,  and  we 
found  no  difficulty  in  passing.  One  feature  of  the  excava- 
tion surprised  us,  namely,  that  for  most  of  the  way  there  is 
a  channel  cut  in  the  rock,  about  three  feet  deep  and  as 
many  wide,  which  seemed  evidently  to  have  been  an  aque- 
duct once  conveying  water  for  irrigating  the  northern  part 
of  the  plain  El-Ghuweir  (Gennesaret.)  There  was  no  mis- 
taking the  nature  and  object  of  this  channel ;  and  yet  no 
waters  were  near  which  could  be  thus  conveyed  except 
from  the  fountains  of  Et-Tabighah.  The  fountains  issue 
from  under  the  hill,  just  back  of  the  village.  We  went 
thither,  and  found  built  up  solidly  around  the  main  foun- 
tain an  octagonal  Roman  reservoir,  now  in  ruins.  Like 
those  at  Ras-el-Ain,  near  Tyre,  it  was  obviously  built  in 
order  to  raise  the  water  to  a  certain  height  for  an  aqueduct. 
The  head  of  water  was  sufficient  to  carry  it  to  the  channel 
around  the  point  of  the  opposite  hill  into  the  plain  El- 
Ghuweir  ;  but  whether  this  was  done  by  a  canal  around 


208  THE  LIFE   OP    OUR  LORD. 

the  sides  of  the  valley,  or  whether  even  it  was  done  at  all, 
there  are  now  no  further  traces  from  which  to  form  a 
judgment.  The  water  has  a  saltish  taste,  but  is  not  un- 
palatable." We  add  Porter's  description  (ii.  429) :  "  Et- 
Tabighah  is  situated  in  a  little  nook  or  bay  close  upon  the 
shore.  The  first  thing  that  attracts  attention  is  the  abun- 
dance of  water  ;  streams,  aqueducts,  pools,  and  fountains  are 
all  around  us.  The  large  fountains  burst  out  from  the  base 
of  the  hill,  a  few  hundred  yards  to  the  north,  and  here, 
around  the  principal  one,  is  an  ancient  octagonal  reservoir, 
something  like  those  at  Ras-el-Ain,  near  Tyre,  probably 
constructed  to  raise  the  water  so  that  it  might  be  carried 
to  the  plain  of  El-Ghuweir  westward,  for  irrigation." 

Here  then  at  Et-Tabiga,  is  a  fountain  sufficiently  copious 
to  irrigate  the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  and  at  no  great  distance. 
That  its  waters  were  actually  used  for  that  purpose  appears 
from  the  fact  that  a  reservoir  was  built  to  raise  them  to 
the  requisite  height,  and  that  an  aqueduct  was  cut  through 
the  rock  at  the  north-eastern  extremity  of  the  plain  to 
convey  them  there.  It  seems  impossible  to  account  for 
this  reservoir  and  this  aqueduct,  except  as  constructed  for 
purposes  of  irrigation,  and  Robinson  speaks  of  the  north- 
ern part  of  the  plain  lying  back  from  the  shore  as  u  appar- 
ently fertilized  by  water  brought  by  the  aqueduct  around 
the  point  of  the  northern  hill." 

In  this  point,  then,  Et-Tabiga  answers  fully  to  the  de- 
scription of  Josephus,  and  the  great  abundance  of  water 
bursting  out  from  beneath  the  hill  would  much  better  jus- 
tify the  popular  fancy  that  it  was  a  branch  of  the  Nile,  than 
the  lesser  fountains  already  mentioned. 

Assuming  for  the  present  with  Thomson,  that  at  Tabiga 
is  the  fountain  Caphernaum  of  Josephus,  let  us  now  look 
for  the  city.  But  in  its  immediate  vicinity  are  no  ruins  of 
importance ;  the  nearest  are  those  of  Tell  Hum,  lying  north- 
easterly upon  the  shore.     "  Here,"  says  Robinson,  (ii.  246,) 


SITE   OF   CAPERNAUM.  209 

"  are  the  remains  of  a  place  of  considerable  extent,  cover- 
ing a  tract  of  at  least  half  a  mile  in  length  along  the  shore, 
and  about  half  that  breadth  inland.  They  consist  chiefly 
of  the  fallen  walls  of  dwellings  and  other  buildings,  all  of 
unhewn  stone,  except  two  ruins."  Thomson  (i.  540)  thus 
describes  them :  "The  shapeless  remains  are  piled  up  in  utter 
confusion  along  the  shore,  extend  up  the  hill  northward  for 
at  least  fifty  rods,  and  are  much  more  extensive  and  strik- 
ing than  those  of  any  other  ancient  city  on  this  part  of  the 
Lake."  Keith '  says :  "  They  form  no  inconsiderable  field 
of  ruins,  at  least  a  mile  and  a  half  in  circumference."  Rob- 
inson does  not  speak  of  any  ruins  as  lying  between  Tabiga 
and  Tell  Hum,  a  distance  of  twenty  or  thirty  minutes, 
but  Thomson  says  that  "traces  of  old  buildings  extend 
nearly  all  the  way  along  the  shore."  As  there  are  no  in- 
dications that  a  large  city  was  ever  situated  directly  at 
Tabiga,  those  who  regard  this  fountain  as  that  of  Capher 
naiun  must  place  the  city  itself  at  Tell  Hum.  Let  us  con- 
sider the  arguments  in  favor  of  this  site. 

A  principal  argument  is  the  similarity  of  name,  the  last 
syllable  being  the  same  in  both.  Caphernaum  is  Kefr 
Nali inn,  "the  village  of  Nahura,"  who  was  some  well- 
known  person  ;  or  "  the  village  of  consolation,"  vims  con- 
solutionis?  Thomson  asserts  that  it  is  "a  very  common 
way  of  curtailing  old  names  to  retain  only  the  final  syl- 
lable." The  substitution  of  Tell,  meaning  hill,  for  Kefr,  vil- 
lage, he  explains  by  the  fact  that  the  village  became  a  heap 
of  ruins  or  rubbish,  and  to  such  a  heap  the  Arabs  apply 
the  term  TelL  Thus  Kefr  Nahum  was  changed  into  Tell 
Nahum,  and  then  abbreviated  into  Tell  Hum.' 

Another  argument  in  favor  of  Tell  Hum  is  drawn  from 


>  Evidence  of  Prophecy,  1860,  155. 

•  Herxog,  Encyc,  rii.  869  ;  Winer,  i.  210. 

•  Winer,  i.  210 ;  Wilson,  ii.  189 ;  Ewald  Christus,  257,  note. 


210  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

the  narrative  of  Josephus.1  Being  bruised  by  a  fall  from  his 
horse  in  a  skirmish  near  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan,  he  was 
carried  to  a  village  named  Cepharnome.  Here  he  remained 
during  the  day,  but  was  removed  by  medical  direction  that 
night  to  Tarichea,  at  the  south  end  of  the  lake.  From 
this  the  inference  may  be  drawn  that  Capernaum  was  the 
first  city  of  importance  from  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan 
southward,  as  the  soldiers  would  not  have  carried  a  wound- 
ed man  further  than  was  necessary.  Hence  Capernaum 
was  Tell  Hum  rather  than  Khan  Minyeh.*  This  is  not  im- 
probable, but  as  we  know  not  whether  special  reasons  may 
not  have  led  Josephus  to  prefer  Capernaum  to  any  other 
city  on  that  part  of  the  shore,  irrespective  of  distance,  the 
argument  is  not  at  all  decisive.' 

In  favor  of  Tell  Hum  Thomson  also  appeals  to  tradition  : 
"  So  far  as  I  can  discover,  after  spending  many  weeks  in 
this  neighborhood,  off  and  on,  for  a  quarter  of  a  century, 
the  invariable  tradition  of  the  Arabs  and  the  Jews  fixes 
Capernaum  at  Tell  Hum,  and  I  believe  correctly." 

To  this  view  two  strong  objections  are  made :  First,  that 
Tell  Hum  is  too  remote  from  the  fountains  at  Tabiga.  The 
exact  distance  is  in  dispute.  Robinson  took  thirty-five  min- 
utes in  passing  from  the  latter  to  the  former.  Elsewhere 
he  speaks  of  them  as  an  hour  apart ;  Porter  as  forty  min- 
utes, Thomson  as  thirty  minutes.  The  distance  must  be  a 
mile  and  a  half  or  two  miles.  Robinson  insists,  in  reply  to 
Ritter,  that  the  city  and  fountain,  both  bearing  the  same 
name,  must  be  adjacent  to  each  other.  It  is  doubtless  gen* 
erally  true,  that  the  site  of  the  fountain  determines  the  site 
of  the  village,  and  both  lie  in  close  proximity ;  but  the  rule 
would  not  hold  in  case  of  those  cities  which  were  built 
along  the  lake,  and  thus  amply  supplied  with  water.  Here 
the  selection  of  a  site  would  naturally  be  governed  by  other 

»  Life,  72.  a  So  Stanley,  376,  note  2 ;  Wilson,  ii.  138. 

8  Ritter,  Theil  xv.  340 ;   Robinson,  iii.  852  ;  Van  de  Velde,  Memoir,  801. 


SITE   OP  CAPERNAUM.  211 

considerations.  We  are  not  then  to  think  it  impossible 
that  a  considerable  distance  should  intervene  between  the 
city  and  its  fountains.  If  the  latter  were  within  the  terri- 
tory of  the  former,  and  their  waters  used  by  its  citizens  for 
mills  or  other  purposes,  they  would  naturally  be  called  by 
its  name.  As  we  have  seen,  the  quantity  of  water  at  Et- 
Tabiga  is  very  abundant.  Robinson  speaks  (ii.  405)  of  "a 
very  copious  stream  bursting  forth  from  immense  foun- 
tains. The  stream  drives  one  or  two  mills,  and  double  the 
same  quantity  of  water  runs  to  waste.  Several  other  mills 
are  in  ruins."  It  was  not  then  merely  to  supply  water 
for  drinking  and  general  domestic  uses  that  these  fountains 
were  valuable.  Thomson  regards  Tabiga  as  "  the  great 
manufacturing  suburb  of  Capernaum,"  where  were  clustered 
together  the  mills,  potteries,  and  tanneries,  and  other  oper- 
ations of  this  sort,  the  traces  of  which  are  still  to  be  seen. 
M I  even  derive  this  name  Tabiga  from  this  business  of  tan- 
ning." If  Tabiga  were  thus  a  suburb  of  Capernaum,  we 
should  naturally  expect  to  find  remains  of  former  habita- 
tions scattered  along  between  them.  Thomson  states  that 
14  traces  of  old  buildings  extend  all  the  way  along  the  shore 
from  Tabiga  to  Tell  Hum,"  thus  connecting  them  together 
as  city  and  suburb.  Robinson,  on  the  other  hand,  speaks  of 
"  other  fountains  and  a  town  "  as  lying  between.  In  this 
we  have  Thomson's  personal  assurance  that  he  is  in  error.1 

But  the  second  and  more  important  objection  is  that 
Capernaum,  according  to  the  Evangelists,  was  situated  in 
the  land  of  Gennesaret,  and  cannot,  therefore,  have  been 
at  Tell  Hum.*  The  consideration  of  this  point  necessarily 
involves  a  consideration  of  the  site  of  Bethsaida. 

It  is  said  by  Luke  (ix.  10)  that  after  the  return  of  the 
apostles  from  their  mission,  and  the  announcement  of  the 

1  As  to  the  statement  of  Arculf,  Early  Travels,  9,  see  Wilson,  ii.  147  j 
Thrupp  in  Journal  Class,  and  Sac.,  Phil.  ii.  290. 
•  See  Robinson,  iii.  849  and  868. 


212  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

death  of  the  Baptist,  the  Lord  "  went  aside  privately  into  a 
desert  place  belonging  to  the  city  called  Bethsaida."  All 
now  agree  that  this  was  Bethsaida  on  the  east  of  Jordan, 
or  Bethsaida  Julias.  In  this  neighborhood  took  place, 
probably  within  a  few  hours,  the  feeding  of  the  five  thou- 
sand. After  this,  toward  night,  He  sends  His  disciples 
away  in  a  ship,  "  to  go  unto  the  other  side  before  unto 
Bethsaida,"  or  over  against  Bethsaida,  (Mark  vi.  45.)  John 
says  (vi.  1 7)  that  "  they  entered  into  a  ship  and  went  over 
the  sea  toward  Capernaum."  Bethsaida  and  Capernaum, 
therefore,  lay  in  the  same  general  direction.  The  wind 
being  contrary,  they  toiled  all  night,  and  had  made  but  25 
or  30  furlongs,  when  in  the  early  morning  Jesus  came  to 
them  walking  upon  the  sea,  and  "immediately  the  ship 
was  at  the  land  whither  they  went,"  (John  vi.  21.)  This 
was  the  land  of  Gennesaret,  (Matt.  xiv.  34 ;  Mark  vi.  53.) 
From  this  it  has  been  inferred  that  Bethsaida  and  Caper- 
naum were  near  each  other  on  the  shore  of  the  lake,  and 
both  in,  or  near  the  land  of  Gennesaret. 

Before  examining  these  accounts  of  the  Evangelists,  let 
us  sum  up  all  that  we  know  from  other  sources  respecting 
Bethsaida.  In  Josephus1  we  find  mention  made  of  a  village 
of  this  name.  "  Philip  the  Tetrarch  also  advanced  the  village 
Bethsaida,  situate  at  the  lake  of  Gennesaret,  unto  the  dig- 
nity of  a  city,  both  by  the  number  of  inhabitants  it  con- 
tained, and  its  other  grandeur,  and  called  it  by  the  name 
of  Julias,  the  same  name  with  Caesar's  daughter."  Else- 
where he  states  that  it  was  "  in  the  lower  Gaulonitis,"  *  and 
in  describing  the  course  of  the  Jordan,  he  says*  that  it  "  di- 
vided the  marshes  and  fens  of  the  lake  Semechonitis;  when  it 
hath  run  another  hundred  and  twenty  furlongs,  it  first  passes 
by  the  city  Julias,  and  then  passes  through  the  middle 
of  the  Lake  Gennesaret."    Thus  Josephus  places  Bethsaida 

Antiq.,  18.  2. 1.  »  War,  2.  9. 1.  »  War,  8. 10.  7. 


SITE   OF  BETHSAIDA.  213 

at  or  near  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan  into  the  Sea  of  Gali- 
lee. It  is  placed,  also,  by  Pliny,  upon  the  east  side  of  the 
Jordan,  and  by  St.  Jerome  upon  the  shore  of  Gennesaret.1 
No  other  Bethsaida  than  this  seems  to  have  been  known, 
down  to  the  time  of  Reland, — at  least  no  other  is  men- 
tioned." Reland,  (653,)  pressed  by  the  difficulty  of  har- 
monizing the  Evangelists,  conjectured  that  there  were  two 
Bethsaidas,  one  on  the  east  of  Jordan,  in  Gaulonitis,  and 
one  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake,  in  Galilee,  (John  xii.  21.) 
And  this  conjecture  has  been  almost  universally  received  as 
the  true  solution.  But  he  himself  was  aware  of  the  improb- 
ability that  two  towns  of  the  same  name  should  lie  upon 
the  same  lake  only  a  few  miles  apart,  and  adopted  this  so- 
lution only  because  he  had  no  other  to  give.  Atque  itay 
quamvis  non  sim  proclivis  ad  statuendas  duaspluresve  urbes 
ejusdem  nominis,  (quod plerumque  ad  salvendam  aliquant 
difficultatem  uUimum  est  refugium>)  hie  tamenpuio  id  neces- 
sario  fieri  oportere.  He  does  not,  however,  allow  that 
there  is  any  mention  in  the  Gospels  of  the  Bethsaida  east  of 
Jordan.  Christus  de  Bethsaida  loquens  nonpotuit  nisi  de 
sola  Oalilaica  intettigi. 

The  grounds  upon  which  is  based  the  view  of  two  Beth- 
saidas were:  1st.  That  the  Bethsaida  of  Joseph  us  was  in 
Gaulonitis,  whereas  John  (xii.  21)  speaks  of  a  "Bethsaida 
of  Galilee."  2d.  That  from  the  statements,  (Mark  vi.  45  ; 
John  vi.  24-25,)  Bethsaida  must  have  been  on  the  west  shore 
of  the  sea,  since,  being  on  the  east  side,  they  entered  a  boat 
to  cross  to  the  other  side.*  We  are,  therefore,  led  back  to 
an  examination  of  the  accounts  of  the  feeding  of  the  5,000, 
and  the  subsequent  crossing  of  the  lake. 

It  is  generally  agreed  that  the  place  in  which  the  5,000 
were  fed,  was  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  in  the  territory 

»  See  Ritter,  Theil  xr.  280. 

*  Raumer,  109,  note ;  Robinson,  ii.  413,  note  6. 

•  Raumer,  109,  note  20. 


214  THE  LIFE   OP   OUE  LORD. 

of  Bethsaida,  (Luke  ix.  10.)  Thomson  (ii.  29)  thinks  he 
finds  the  exact  spot  at  the  point  where  the  hills  on  the  east 
side  of  the  plain  Butaiha  come  to  the  edge  of  the  lake.  No 
other  spot  than  this  answers  to  all  the  conditions  of  the  nar- 
rative. From  this  point  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan  lies  three 
or  four  miles  north-west,  and  Tell  Hum,  nearly  directly 
west  across  the  lake ;  the  land  of  Gennesaret  lying  to  the 
south  of  Tell  Hum.  The  narratives,  then,  may  be  thus  ex- 
plained. According  to  Mark,  (vi.  45,)  the  Lord  "con- 
strained His  disciples  to  get  into  the  ship,  and  to  go  to  the 
other  side  before  unto  Bethsaida,  while  He  sent  away  the 
people."  They  should  go  before  Him  unto  Bethsaida,  and 
He  would  follow  after  He  had  sent  away  the  people.1  Here 
Bethsaida  appears  as  the  point  of  destination.  John  says 
(vi.  11)  that  "  the  disciples  entered  a  ship  and  went  over  the 
sea  toward  Capernaum."  Here  Capernaum  appears  as  the 
point  of  destination.  Let  us  suppose  that  Bethsaida  was,  as 
stated  by  Josephus,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan,  and  that 
Capernaum  was  at  Tell  Hum,  and,  as  the  Lord's  own  resi- 
dence, the  point  at  which  they  aimed.  The  relative  posi- 
tions of  the  two  places  are  such,  that  to  reach  Capernaum 
from  the  point  where  the  Lord  then  was,  a  boat  would  nat- 
urally go  in  a  north-westerly  direction,  and  so  pass  near 
Bethsaida. 

If  the  disciples,  according  to  His  request,  left  the  Lord 
alone  at  night  upon  the  eastern  side,  and  returned  to  Ca- 
pernaum in  the  only  boat  they  had,  how  could  He  follow 
them  ?  They  were  naturally,  therefore,  unwilling  to  leave 
Him  in  that  desert  place  ;  but  He  "  constrained  "  them  to 
go.  They  directed  their  course  toward  Bethsaida,  both  as 
on  their  way,  for  they  would  naturally  row  along  the  north- 
ern shore,*  and  as  also  hoping  that  after  He  he  had  sent  the 
multitude  away,  He  would  rejoin  them  there.'     But  the 

1  Alexander  in  loco.  »  Robinson,  iii.  354. 

»  See  Wieseler,  274,  note  1.    Newcome,  263,  who  quotes  Lamy  to  the  same 
effect. 


SITE   OP   BETHSAIDA.  215 

wind  being  contrary,  or  blowing  from  the  north-east,  they 
were  driven  southward,  away  from  the  northern  shore,  and 
could  not  make  Bethsaida,  and  toiled  all  night,  and  when 
Jesus  joined  them  in  the  morning,  were  nearly  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  lake.  After  He  joined  them,  they  came  to  the 
land  of  Gennesaret,  (Matt.  xiv.  34,)  or  "  the  land  whither 
they  went,"  (John  vi.  21.)  This  implies  that  Capernaum, 
their  point  of  destination,  was  near  Gennesaret ;  but  that 
they  did  not  land  immediately  at  that  city  is  evident  from 
Mark  vi.  54-56.  He  seems  to  have  gone  thither  the  same  day, 
healing  the  sick  by  the  way. 

If  there  were  two  Bethsaidas,  upon  which  of  them  did 
the  Lord  pronounce  a  woe  ?  The  only  "  mighty  works," 
which  are  recorded  to  have  been  done  by  Him  in  any  Beth- 
saida, are  the  healing  of  a  blind  man,  (Mark  viii.  22,)  and 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  (Luke  ix.  10.)  That  this 
was  the  Bethsaida  Julias  is  generally  admitted.1  Upon 
this,  therefore,  the  woe  was  pronounced,  and  not  upon  the 
Bethsaida  west  of  the  fcke. 

Thomson,  examining  the  narratives  of  the  Evangelists, 
upon  the  very  spot  where  he  supposes  the  Lord  to  have 
stood  when  He  sent  away  His  disciples,  finds  no  necessity 
of  placing  a  Bethsaida  on  the  west  side  of  the  lake  to  satisfy 
their  conditions.  The  examination  made  by  one  so  familiar 
with  their  localities,  and  with  the  sea  spread  out  before  him 
as  a  map,  and  so  well  acquainted  with  all  the  points  of  diffi- 
culty involved  in  the  question,  may  be  regarded  as  turning 
the  balance  of  probability  m  favor  of  a  single  Bethsaida,  and 
that  situated  at  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan. 

But  there  stills  remains  an  objection  to  be  noted ;  bow 
can  Bethsaida  at  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan  be  called  Beth- 
saida of  Galilee  ?  This  may  readily  be  answered  if  we  ac- 
cept the  very  probable  supposition  of  Thomson,  that  the 

1  Meyer,  Oosterzee,  Alford. 


216  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

town  was  built  upon  both  banks  of  the  river,  and  thus  a 
part  was  in  Gaulonitis,  and  a  part  in  Galilee.1  As  the  river 
is  narrow,  it  is  almost  certain  that  if  the  main  part  of  the 
city  was  upon  one  bank,  the  other  would  also  be  inhabited. 
Philip  the  Tetrarch,  in  enlarging  and  ornamenting  it,  doubt- 
less confined  himself  to  the  eastern  side,  or  that  part  which 
lay  in  his  own  dominions,  and  this  would  thus  become,  if  it 
were  not  at  first,  distinctively  the  city,  to  which  the  west- 
ern side  would  stand  as  the  suburbs.  Philip,  the  disciple, 
living  on  the  west  bank,  may  thus  have  been  from  Beth- 
saida  of  Galilee,  which  the  Evangelist  thus  designates  in 
order  to  distinguish  it. 

There  are  no  ruins  indicating  antiquity  by  which  to  de- 
termine the  site  of  Bethsaida  Julias.  Robinson  places  it  on 
a  hill,  two  or  three  miles  above  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan. 
"  The  ruins  cover  a  large  portion  of  it,  and  are  quite  exten- 
sive, but  so  far  as  could  be  observed,  consist  entirely  of 
unhewn  volcanic  stones,  without  any  distinct  trace  of  an- 
cient architecture."  Porter  says ;  "  Heaps  of  unhewn 
stones,  and  a  few  rude  houses,  used  as  stores  by  the  Arabs, 
are  all  that  have  hitherto  been  seen  on  the  spot."  Neither 
of  these  travellers  speak  of  any  remains  at  the  mouth  of  the 
river.  Thomson,  however,  says  that "  the  only  ruins  of  any 
importance  are  below,  along  the  foot  of  the  hills  bordering 
the  vale  of  the  Jordan,  and  at  its  debouchure  on  the  west 
side."  Here  he  mentions  as  still  to  be  seen,  some  remains 
of  ancient  buildings.  He  supposes  that  as  the  city  derived 
its  name. from  its  fisheries — house  of  fish — "it  must  have 
been  located  on  the  shore,  and  not  several  miles  from  it  at 
the  Tell,  to  which  the  name  is  now  affixed." 

It  would  be  useless  to  dwell  upon  the  conjectures  that 
have  been  made  for  the  purpose  of  harmonizing  the  Evan- 

1  So  Rohr,  Palestine,  154.  "  Bethsaida  Julias  lay  on  the  north-east  shore 
of  the  lake  near  the  influx  of  the  Jordan,  and  probably  on  both  sides  of  the 
river."    So  Calmet  and  others. 


SITE   OP   BETHSAIDA.  217 

gelical  narratives  without  resorting  to  the  supposition  of 
two  Bethsaidas.  The  most  probable  was  that  of  Lightfoot, 
who  made  Galilee  to  have  extended  beyond  the  Jordan  so 
as  to  embrace  Bethsaida  Julias.  Recently,  De  Saulcy,  on 
the  other  hand,  would  make  Gaulonitis  to  have  extended 
westward  of  the  Jordan,  and  thus  bring  Bethsaida  within 
its  limits. 

If  we  rest  in  the  conclusion  that  there  was  but  one 
Bethsaida,  and  that  at  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan,  the  ques- 
tion respecting  the  site  of  Capernaum  is  somewhat  simpli- 
fied. If  we  place  the  latter  city  at  Tell  Hum,  the  distance 
between  them  is  about  three  miles.  Robinson  was  an  hour 
and  five  minutes  from  Tell  Hum  to  the  banks  of  the  Jor- 
dan just  at  its  entrance  into  the  lake.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  Gospel  which  makes  it  necessary  to  bring  them  into 
close  proximity,  and  their  relative  positions  conform  to  the 
Evangelical  notices  and  to  the  statements  of  travellers. 
Willibald,  proceeding  northward  from  Tiberias,  u  went  by 
the  village  of  Magdalene  to  the  village  of  Capernaum,  and 
thence  he  went  to  Bethsaida."  So  Robinson,  from  a  com- 
parison of  Mark  vi.  45  and  John  vi.  17  infers  that  Beth- 
saida lay  north  of  Capernaum.  As  Tell  Hum  lies  about  an 
hour  north  of  Khan  Minyeh,  it  better  fits  the  narrative, 
(Mark  vi  33,)  since  it  was  much  easier  for  the  crowds,  that 
followed  Him  on  foot  to  the  desert  place  on  the  east  side, 
to  go  from  the  former  than  the  latter.1  The  little  distance 
of  Tell  Hum  from  the  land  of  Gennesaret  presents  no  diffi- 
culty. "  The  position  of  Tell  Hum  seems  to  us  to  agree  in 
every  respect  with  the  Gospel  narrative,  being  near,  not  in 
the  land  of  Gennesaret,  and  not  too  far  from  the  east  side 
of  the  lake  to  allow  people  to  follow  Jesus  on  foot  while 
He  was  crossing  the  water  with  His  di8ciples.,,  *  When, 
after  the  Lord  joined  them  upon  that  memorable  night, 

»  So  Wilson,  ii.  145  •  Van  de  Velde,  Memoir,  802. 

10 


218  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD. 

they  landed  upon  the  plain,  it  is  obvious  from  the  following 
statements  that  they  did  not  land  directly  at  Capernaum, 
but  some  distance  southward,  and  that,  going  to  Caper- 
naum in  the  course  of  the  day,  He  was  there  found  by  the 
people  that  followed  Him  (Mark  vi.  53-55  ;  John  vi.  24.) 

We  have  still  to  inquire  respecting  the  site  of  Chora- 
zin.  Two  or  three  miles  northwest  from  Tell  Hum  are 
some  ruins  called  Khirbet  Kerazeh.  They  were  visited  by 
Robinson,  who  describes  them  as  "  a  few  foundations  of 
black  stones,  the  remains  evidently  of  a  poor  and  incon- 
siderable village,"  and  regards  them  as  "  too  trivial  ever  to 
have  belonged  to  a  place  of  any  importance.  Chorazin 
too,  according  to  Jerome,  lay  upon  the  shore  of  the  lake, 
but  the  site  is  an  hour  distant,  shut  in  among  the  hills, 
without  any  view  of  the  lake,  and  remote  from  any  public 
road,  ancient  or  modern."  While  Robinson  thus  rejects 
Kerazeh  as  the  site  of  Chorazin,  Thomson  is  equally  decided 
in  its  favor.  "  I  have  scarcely  a  doubt  about  the  correct- 
ness of  the  identificatioD,  though  Dr.  Robinson  rejects  it 
almost  with  contempt.  But  the  name  Korazy  is  nearly  the 
Arabic  for  Chorazin ;  the  situation,  two  miles  north  of  Tell 
Hum,  is  just  where  we  might  expect  to  find  it ;  the  ruins  are 
quite  adequate  to  answer  the  demands  of  history,  and  there 
is  no  rival  site."  With  Thomson  Keith  agrees : '  "  There 
seems  no  reason  for  questioning  that  Korazy  is  the  Chora- 
zin of  Scripture,  in  which  it  is  not  said  to  stand  on  the  shore 
of  the  lake  of  Tiberias,  as  Capernaum  and  Bethsaida  are. 
We  reached  it  in  fifty-five  minutes  from  the  chief  ruin  of 
Tell  Hum,  from  three  to  four  miles  distant.  It  lies  almost 
directly  to  the  west  of  the  point  where  the  Jordan  flows 
into  the  lake.  It  retains  the  name  and  is  known  by  it  still 
among  the  inhabitants  of  the  country  round,  and,  as  we  re- 
peatedly enquired,  especially  at  Safet,  by  no  other.     Ko- 

»  Evidence  of  Prophecy,  160. 


SITE  OF   CHORAZIN.  219 

razy,  of  which  not  a  house  now  stands,  consists  of  fallen 
walls  lying  in  heaps  of  no  defined  form,  intermixed  with 
lines  of  ruined  buildings,  and  some  squares  whose  form  is 
still  entire,  filled  with  ruins.  A  small  field  of  tobacco 
amidst  the  ruins  was  the  only  sign  of  industry  about  it,  and, 
though  in  a  hilly  region,  a  few  poor  tents  were  the  only 
dwellings  near  it.  The  ruins  were  at  least  a  mile  in  cir- 
cumference, possibly  more."  That  the  ruins  of  Kerazeh  do 
not  lie  directly  upon  the  lake  is  not  in  opposition  to  Jerome. 
■  Jerome  in  his  translation  of  Eusebius  says  that  Chorazin' 
stood  at  the  second  milestone  from  Capernaum,  that  is, 
north  of  Capernaum,  the  milestones  being  reckoned  from 
Tarichaea." ' 

This  topographical  discussion,  extended  as  it  is,  by  no 
means  exhausts  the  subject.*  Certainty  as  regards  these 
sites  is  at  present  unattainable,  but  as  the  question  now 
stands  it  is  most  probable  that  Capernaum  was  at  Tell 
Hum ;  that  there  was  but  one  Bethsaida,  and  this  at  the 
entrance  of  the  Jordan  into  the  lake,  and  lying  on  both 
sides  of  the  river.  Chorazin  may  be  left  undetermined, 
being  but  twice  spoken  of  in  the  Gospel  narratives,  and  only 
in  connection  with  its  doom.  As  to  the  size  and  population 
and  business  of  Capernaum,  the  Evangelists  give  us  no 
definite  information.  It  is,  with  Bethsaida  and  Chorazin, 
called  a  city,  (Matt.  xi.  20,)  and  often  elsewhere.  But  Nor- 
ton refers  to  Josephus,  who  calls  it  a  "  village ; "  and  to  the 
statement,  (Luke  vii.  5,)  "  For  he  loveth  our  nation  and  he 
hath  built  us  a  synagogue,"  as  showing  that  the  city  had 
but  one,  and  that  one  built  by  a  Roman  centurion. 

We  have  thus  far  left  unnoticed  the  ground  recently 
taken  by  some  Biblical  critics,  that  "  the  land  of  Gennes- 

»  Norton,  note*,  115.  See  Winer,  i.  228 ;  Van  de  Velde,  Memoir,  804. 
Greawell  makes  Chorazin  the  same  as  Chor  Ashan.     1  Sam.  xxz.  80. 

«  The  reader  who  desires  to  examine  it  further,  will  find  ample  materials 
in  Rohinson,  Thomson,  Raumer,  Ritter,  and  others. 


220  THE  LIFE   OP   OI7B  LOED. 

aret "  is  to  be  identified  with  the  plain  El  Batihah  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Jordan.1  The  arguments  by  which  it  is  sup- 
ported are  briefly  these,  that  the  political  divisions,  which 
assigned  the  Jordan  as  the  eastern  limit  of  Galilee,  had  no 
existence  prior  to  the  will  of  Herod  partitioning  his  do- 
minions among  his  sons;  that  there  was  but  one  Beth- 
saida, and  that  Bethsaida  Julias  at  the  mouth  of  the  Jor- 
dan ;  that  the  Scriptures  show  that  Capernaum  and  Beth- 
saida were  but  a  step  apart,  and  therefore  Capernaum  was 
in  the  plain  El  Batihah  ;  and  that  this  site  best  corresponds 
to  the  language  of  Josephus.*  Admitting  that  there  is  some 
force  in  these  considerations,  still  they  are  by  no  means  so 
weighty  as  to  lead  us  to  change  the  position  of  the  land 
of  Gennesaret  from  the  west  to  the  north  of  the  lake.  That 
there  was  but  one  Bethsaida  has  been  already  shown.' 


April— May,  781.     a.  d.  28. 

Arriving  at  Capernaum  the  Lord  begins  to  gather  Matt.  iv.  18-22. 

about  Him  His  former  disciples  that  they  may  accom-  Mark  i.  16-34. 

pany  and  assist  Him  in  His  work.     He  enters  the  Lukk  v.  1-11. 

Synagogue  and  there  heals  a  demoniac.     Thence  he  Lukk  iv.  33-41. 

goes  to  the  house  of  Peter,  and  heals  his  wife's  mother  MArr.viii.  14-17. 
of  a  fever,  and  in  the  evening  He  heals  many  sick  per- 
sons who  were  brought  to  Him. 

The  arrival  of  the  Lord  at  Capernaum,  there  to  take  up 
His  abode,  offers  us  a  fitting  place  in  which  to  speak  of  His 
Galilean  work  in  its  general  practical  features.    In  many 

J  For  an  account  of  this  plain,  see  Robinson,  ii.  409. 

3  See  article  by  Tregelles,  in  Journal  of  Classical  and  Sacred  Philology, 
vol.  lii.  p.  145.  See  also  article,  vol.  ii.  p.  290,  by  Thrupp,  who  regards 
Gennesaret  as  El  Batihah,  but  identifies  Capernaum  with  Tell  Hum,  and  finds 
no  trace  or  tradition  of  a  Bethsaida  on  the  western  side  of  the  lake. 

3  See  Ewald,  Jahrbuch,  1856,  p.  144,  who  also  places  Gennesaret  on  tu« 
north  of  the  sea. 


cmcurrs  in  Galilee.  221 

points  it  was  very  unlike  His  earlier  work  in  Judea.  So 
far  as  we  can  learn,  He  did  not  then  go  from  place  to  place 
baptizing,  nor  does  He  seem  to  have  made  any  use  of  the 
synagogues  for  the  purpose  of  teaching.  Like  the  Baptist, 
He  did  not  seek  the  people  in  their  cities  and  villages,  but 
made  the  people  seek  Him,  (Matt.  iii.  5  ;  xi.  1.)  In  Galilee 
the  Lord  began  immediately  to  visit  the  people  in  all  their 
cities  and  villages,  making  Capernaum  the  central  point  of 
His  labors,  and  this  He  did  in  a  systematic  manner.  He 
went  round  about  the  villages  teaching,  (Mark  vi.  6.)  "In 
a  circle,"  says  Alexander,  "  or  circuit,  that  is,  not  merely 
round  about,  but  on  a  regular  concerted  plan  of  periodical 
visitation."  We  have  not  sufficient  data  to  determine  the 
local  order  of  these  visitations  ;  but  it  is  natural  to  suppose 
that  He  would  first  visit  the  places  near  Capernaum,  and 
then  those  more  remote,  (Mark  i.  38.)  From  this  city  as  a 
centre  He  would  go  forth  to  preach  in  the  adjoining  towns, 
and  extend  His  labors  to  those  more  distant  by  degrees. 
And  His  course  would  be  directed  rather  to  the  west  than 
to  the  east,  both  because  Galilee  lay  to  the  westward,  and 
because  of  the  semi-heathenish  character  of  the  people  who 
lived  beyond  the  lake.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  considerable  time, 
as  we  shall  see,  ere  He  visited  the  regions  of  Csesarea  Phi- 
lippi  and  of  Decapolis. 

During  these  circuits  we  find  the  Lord  journeying  from 
place  to  place,  remaining  for  the  most  part  only  a  little 
while  in  a  place.  In  these  journeys  He  was  attended  by 
His  disciples ;  at  first  by  those  who  had  before  been  with 
Him,  and  whom  He  recalled,  and  then  by  others,  and  after- 
ward by  the  body  of  the  Apostles,  who  were  His  constant 
attendants.  At  a  later  period  of  His  ministry,  His  mother 
and  other  women  accompanied  Him  in  some  of  His  circuits, 
(Luke  viiL  2,)  and  He  was  followed  by  crowds,  who  were 
drawn  to  Him  by  various  motives.  His  common  mode  of 
procedure  was  apparently  this :  on  entering  a  city  where 


222  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

was  a  synagogue,  He  availed  Himself  of  the  privilege  which 
His  reputation  as  a  rabbi  and  prophet  gave  Him,  to  teach 
the  people  from  the  Scriptures.  This  He  did  upon  the 
Sabbaths  and  synagogue  days.  At  other  times  He  preached 
in  the  streets  or  fields,  or  sitting  in  a  boat  upon  the  sea ;  in 
every  convenient  place  where  the  people  were  willing  to 
hear  Him.  His  fame  as  a  healer  of  the  sick  caused  many 
to  be  brought  to  Him,  and  He  appears  in  general  to  have 
healed  all,  (Mark  vi.  56  ;  Matt.  ix.  35.)  His  sojourn  in  any 
single  village  was  necessarily  brief,  and  therefore  those  who 
had  been  really  impressed  by  His  works  or  words,  and  de- 
sired to  see  or  hear  Him  more,  followed  Him  to  the  adjoin- 
ing towns,  or  sought  Him  at  Capernaum.  The  disciples  do 
not  appear  to  have  taken  any  public  part  as  teachers,  but 
may  privately  have  aided  Him  in  various  ways  to  dissemi- 
nate truth  among  the  people.  The  expenses  of  these 
journeys  were  probably  borne  by  the  contributions  of  the 
disciples,  and  by  the  voluntary  offerings  of  the  grateful  who 
had  been  healed,  and  of  their  friends.  After  the  Twelve 
had  been  chosen,  one  of  their  number  seems  to  have  acted 
as  treasurer,  taking  charge  of  the  moneys  designed  for  the 
common  use,  (see  John  xii.  6.) 

A  specimen  of  the  daily  activity  of  the  Lord  may  be 
found  in  the  narrative  of  His  early  work  in  Capernaum. 
He  enters  upon  the  Sabbath  into  the  synagogue,  and  teaches, 
filling  all  His  hearers  with  astonishment  at  His  words.  He 
then  heals  a  demoniac,  probably  immediately  after  the  dis- 
course. Leaving  the  synagogue,  He  enters  Peter's  house 
and  heals  a  sick  woman,  and  crowds  coming  to  Him  at 
evening,  He  heals  many  others.  The  next  morning,  after 
a  time  of  meditation  and  prayer,  He  departs  to  another 
city.  Similar,  doubtless,  in  their  main  features  to  this, 
were  His  labors  upon  subsequent  Sabbaths.  In  mentioning 
these  circuits,  none  of  the  Evangelists  give  them  in  regular 
order,  or  relate  the  events  in   chronological   succession. 


CIRCUITS   IN   GALILEE.  223 

Each  has  his  own  principle  of  selection  and  of  arrangement, 
with  which  we  are  not  now  concerned ;  but  it  is  obvious 
when  we  remember  how  great  the  Lord's  activity,  how 
many  His  works  and  words,  that  within  the  limits  of  their 
narratives  only  very  brief  outlines  can  be  given. 

The  stages  of  progress  in  the  Lord's  labors  in  Galilee 
will  be  noticed  as  we  meet  them.  Yet  it  should  be  noted 
as  characteristic  of  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  that  we 
do  not  find  any  open  avowal  of  His  Messianic  claims.  He 
wished  the  people  to  infer  who  He  was  from  His  words  and 
works,  rather  than  learn  it  from  any  express  declarations 
of  His  own.  He  preached  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  at 
hand,  and  illustrated  it  by  His  miracles.  If  the  people  had 
sufficient  spiritual  discernment  to  see  the  true  import  of 
what  He  said  and  did,  this  was  all  the  proof  that  was 
needed  that  He  was  the  Messiah. 

We  give  at  this  point,  for  the  sake  of  convenient  refer- 
ence, an  outline  of  the  Lord's  Galilean  work,  divided  into 
periods  of  sojourn  in  Capernaum,  and  of  circuits  in  the  ad- 
jacent territories.  The  grounds  for  the  order  will  be  stated 
as  the  particular  periods  come  under  consideration. 

First  Sojourn  in  Capernaum, 

Rejected  at  Nazareth  He  comes  to  Capernaum.  In  its 
neighborhood  He  calls  the  four  disciples  while  fishing  upon 
the  lake.  On  the  following  Sabbath  He  preaches  in  the 
synagogue,  and  heals  the  demoniac,  and  afterward  heals 
the  mother  of  Peter's  wife.  In  the  afternoon,  after  the  sun 
had  set,  He  heals  many  others.  Early  the  next  morning  He 
rises  to  pray,  and  then  departs  to  preach  and  heal  in  the 
adjacent  cities  and  villages. 

FIRST  CIRCUIT. 

He  visits  the  "next"  villages,  probably  those  lying 
nearest  Capernaum,  as  Ghorazin  and  Bethsaida.    No  par- 


224  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

ticulars  of  this  circuit  are  given,  except  that  He  heals  a 
leper  "  in  one  of  the  cities."  This  being  noised  abroad,  He 
is  for  a  time  unable  to  enter  any  city,  and  retires  to  secluded 
places,  where  the  people  gather  to  Him. 

Second  Sojourn  in  Capernaum. 

Crowds  begin  to  gather  to  Him  so  soon  as  it  is  known 
that  He  is  at  home.  A  paralytic  is  brought  to  Him,  whom 
He  heals,  forgiving  his  sins.  This  awakens  the  anger  of 
the  scribes,  who  regard  it  as  an  assumption  of  the  Divine 
prerogatives.  He  goes  forth  again  by  the  seaside,  and 
teaches.  Walking  along  the  shore,  He  calls  Levi.  He 
goes  upon  a  Sabbath  through  a  field  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Capernaum  with  His  disciples,  and  on  the  way  plucks 
and  eats  the  ears  of  corn.  This  is  noted  by  the  Pharisees 
of  the  city,  who  were  watching  Him.  He  enters  the  second 
time  into  the  synagogue,  and  heals  the  man  with  a  with- 
ered hand.  The  Pharisees  and  Herodians  now  conspire 
against  Him.  He  departs  to  the  seaside,  and  is  followed 
by  crowds. 

SECOND  CIRCUIT. 

Leaving  Capernaum,  He  goes  to  a  mountain  in  the 
neighborhood,  and  after  a  night  spent  in  prayer,  calls  His 
disciples,  and  from  them  chooses  the  twelve  apostles.  Great 
multitudes  now  gathering  to  Him,  He  delivers  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  and  returns,  apparently  the  same  day,  to 
Capernaum,  still  followed  by  the  multitudes. 

Third  Sojourn  in  Capernaum. 

He  heals,  immediately  upon  His  return,  the  Centurion's 
servant.  The  people  so  throng  Him,  and  His  labors  are  so 
incessant,  that  He  has  not  time  even  to  eat,  and  His  friends 
fear  for  His  sanity. 


CIRCUITS   IN   GALILEE.  225 


THIRD   CIRCUIT. 


The  day  following  He  goes  to  Nain,  and  raises  from 
death  the  widow's  son.  He  continues  His  ministry  in  the 
adjacent  region.  John  Baptist  sends  a  message  to  Him 
from  his  prison ;  to  which  He  replies,  and  addresses  the 
people  respecting  John.  He  dines  with  Simon,  a  Pharisee, 
and  is  anointed  by  a  woman,  who  is  a  sinner.  He  returns 
again  to  Capernaum. 

Fourth  Sojourn  in  Capernaum, 

He  heals  a  blind  and  dumb  possessed ;  whereupon  the 
Pharisees  blaspheme,  saying  that  He  is  aided  by  Beelzebub. 
His  mother  and  brethren  come  to  Him,  but  He  rejects  their 
claims.    He  goes  to  the  sea-shore  and  teaches  in  parables. 

FOURTH  CIRCUIT. 

The  same  day  at  even,  He  crosses  the  sea  with  His  dis- 
ciples, and  stills  the  tempest  He  heals  the  Gadarene  de- 
moniacs, and  the  devils,  entering  into,  destroy  a  herd  of 
swine.  The  people  of  the  country  entreat  Him  to  depart, 
and  He  returns  to  Capernaum. 

Fifth  Sojourn  in  Capernaum. 

Here  Levi  makes  Him  a  feast.  He  heals  the  daughter 
of  Jairus,  and  the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood. 

FTFTH   CIRCUIT. 

He  goes  to  Nazareth,  and  is  a  second  time  rejected. 
He  teaches  in  the  villages  of  that  part  of  Galilee,  and  sends 
out  the  twelve  apostles  on  their  mission.  About  this  time 
Herod  puts  the  Baptist  to  death,  and  now  hearing  of  Jesus 
and  His  miracles,  wishes  to  see  Him.  Jesus  returns  to  Ca- 
pernaum, and  the  apostles  gather  to  Him  there. 
10* 


226  THE  LIFE   OP   OUB   LORD. 


Sixth  Sojourn  in  Capernaum. 

No  event  is  narrated  as  having  occurred  during  this 
sojourn.  Probably  it  was  very  brief— a  mere  passage 
through  the  city. 

SIXTH   CIRCUIT. 

He  crosses  the  sea  with  the  Twelve  to  seek  retirement, 
but  the  multitude  immediately  follow  Him.  He  feeds  the 
5,000,  and  sending  away  the  apostles  by  ship,  He  rejoins 
them  the  next  morning,  walking  on  the  sea.  Landing  on 
the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  they  return  to  Capernaum. 

Seventh  Sojourn  in  Capernaum. 

He  discourses  in  the  synagogue  upon  the  bread  of  life. 
His  discourse  causes  many  of  His  disciples  to  forsake  Him. 
He  addresses  the  Pharisees,  and  heals  the  sick. 

SEVENTH   CIRCUIT. 

He  goes  to  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  to  find  retire- 
ment. Here  He  heals  the  daughter  of  the  Syro-Phoenician 
woman.  Crossing  the  northern  part  of  the  Jordan,  He 
goes  to  Decapolis.  He  heals  a  deaf  man,  and  feeds  the 
4,000,  and  returns  by  Dalmanutha  to  Capernaum. 

Eighth  Sojourn  in  Capernaum. 
He  is  tempted  by  the  Pharisees,  who  seek  a  sign. 

EIGHTH   CIRCUIT. 

He  crosses  the  sea  and  visits  Bethsaida,  where  He  heals 
a  blind  man.  He  goes  toward  Caesarea  Philippi,  and  is 
transfigured.  He  heals  the  lunatic  child,  and  returns  to 
Capernaum. 


JESUS  BEGINS   HIS   LABORS   AT  CAPERNAUM.  227 


Ninth  Sojourn  in  Capernaum. 

He  pays  the  tribute  money,  and  discourses  to  the  dis- 
ciples. His  brethren  would  persuade  Him  to  go  up  to  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles,  and  work  miracles  at  Jerusalem.  He 
rejects  their  counsel. 

NINTH   CIRCUIT. 

He  goes  up  in  secret  to  Jerusalem  during  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  and  teaches  the  people.  Afterward,  a  woman 
taken  in  adultery  is  brought  before  Him.  He  heals  a  blind 
man,  and  addresses  the  people.    He  returns  to  Capernaum. 

Final  Departure  from  Capernaum  and  Galilee. 


The  first  notice  we  have  of  the  Lord,  after  leaving  Naz- 
areth, (Matt.  iv.  18;  Mark  i.  16;  Luke  v.  1,)  brings  Him 
before  us  standing  on  the  shore  of  the  lake,  and  surrounded 
by  people  that  pressed  npon  Him  to  hear  the  word  of  God. 
How  long  an  interval  had  elapsed  since  He  left  Nazareth, 
we  have  no  data  to  decide,  but  this  gathering  of  the  people 
to  Him  presupposes  a  period,  longer  or  shorter,  during 
which  He  had  been  teaching.  Not  improbably  He  may 
have  been  several  days  upon  the  journey,  and  His  growing 
reputation  as  a  prophet,  joined  to  rumors  of  what  had 
taken  place  at  Nazareth,  would  procure  Him  audience  in 
whatever  village  He  entered.  Especially  as  He  came  near 
the  lake,  the  numerous  cities  and  villages  would  furnish 
crowds  of  listeners  to  hear  one  who  spake  as  never  man 
spake. 

It  was  as  He  thus  approached  Capernaum  that  He  met 
upon  the  lake  His  former  disciples,  Simon,  Andrew,  James, 
and  John,  and  called  them  again  into  His  service.  We 
have  already  seen  that  on  leaving  Galilee,  His  baptismal 


228  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

work  ceasing,  His  disciples  left  Him  and  returned  to  their 
homes  and  usual  pursuits.  To  the  feast  (John  v.  1)  He 
seems  to  have  gone  unattended,  nor  apparently  were  any 
disciples  with  Him  at  Nazareth.  But  now  that  John's  im- 
prisonment had  determined  the  character  of  His  future 
ministry,  He  proceeds  to  gather  around  Him  those  who 
had  already  been  workers  with  Him,  that  they  might  enter 
upon  this  new  sphere  of  labor.  Heretofore  their  relations 
to  Him  had  been  similar  to  their  previous  relations  to  John 
the  Baptist,  involving  only  a  temporary  absence  from  their 
families  and  business.  "These  disciples,  hitherto,"  says 
Lightfoot,  "  were  only  as  private  men  following  Christ." 
But  now  the  Lord  sought  to  engage  them  in  a  work  which 
should  be  life-long,  and  which  was  incompatible  with  other 
pursuits.  They  should  now  be  His  constant  attendants, 
going  with  Him  wherever  He  went,  and  thus  necessarily 
separated  from  their  families  and  friends.  This  call  to  fol- 
low Him,  was  not,  indeed,  as  Alford  and  others  suppose,  a 
call  to  the  apostleship,  but  to  a  preliminary  service ;  and 
those  thus  called  had  as  yet  little  understanding  what 
labors,  dangers,  or  dignities,  it  involved. 

To  one  who  considers  the  essentially  different  character 
of  Christ's  work  in  Judea  and  in  Galilee,  it  will  not  appear 
surprising  that,  beginning  the  latter,  He  should  give  to 
these  disciples  a  new  and  distinct  call.  Only  neglect  to 
note  this  difference  permits  any  one  to  speak  of  a  want  of 
harmony  between  John  and  the  Synoptists  upon  this 
ground. 

From  the  narratives  of  Mark,  (i.  16-35  ;  see  also  Matt, 
iv.  18-23,)  we  should  infer  that  the  call  of  Peter  and  An- 
drew, James  and  John,  was  His  first  act  after  the  Lord 
came  to  Capernaum.  Luke,  however,  (iv.  31-42,)  places 
the  preaching  in  the  synagogue,  the  healing  of  the  de- 
moniac, and  of  Peter's  wife's  mother  and  others,  and  His 
first  circuit,  before  this  call ;  which  order  some  follow.    But 


CALL   OF  THE  DISCIPLES   AT  SEA   OF   GALILEE.  229 

we  shall  find  abundant  proof  that  Luke  does  not  follow  the 
chronological  order,  and  that  nothing  decisive  can  be  in- 
ferred from  the  fact  that  he  places  the  call  after  the  miracles 
and  teaching.  Still,  as  his  accounts  of  this  call  differ  some- 
what from  those  of  Mark  and  Matthew,  many  have  been 
led  to  regard  th#m  as  distinct,  and  as  happening  at  differ- 
ent times.1  The  peculiarity  of  the  call  in  Luke,  according 
to  tliis  view,  is,  that  it  was  later  than  that  in  Matthew  and 
Mark,  and  that  now  "  the  disciples  forsook  all,  and  followed 
Him."  Now  they  became  fishers  of  men,  (Luke  v.  10,)  in 
fulfilment  of  His  previous  promise,  (Matt.  iv.  1 9.)  This  in- 
volved the  entire  relinquishment  of  their  secular  callings, 
and  to  convince  them  of  His  ability  to  take  care  of  them 
and  supply  every  temporal  need,  the  Lord  works  the 
miracle  of  the  draught  of  fishes.  But  the  words  of  both 
Matthew  (iv.  20)  and  Mark  (i.  18)  are  express  that  "they 
straightway  forsook  their  nets  and  followed  Him."  How, 
then,  should  they  be  found  several  days  after  engaged  in 
their  usual  occupations  ?  That,  whenever  the  Lord  was  at 
Capernaum,  these  disciples  were  wont  to  follow  their  call- 
ing as  fishermen,  as  said  by  Alford,  is  plainly  inconsistent 
with  their  relations  to  Him,  and  with  the  service  He  sought 
from  them.  Certainly  they  could  have  had  little  time  for 
such  labors  amidst  the  pressure  of  the  crowds,  which  seem 
to  have  ever  gathered  around  Him  when  He  came  to  Ca- 
pernaum.' 

The  circumstances  attending  the  call  of  the  disciples,  as 
related  by  the  several  Evangelists, may  be  thus  arranged:  As 
Jesus  approaches  the  plain  of  Gennesaret  from  Nazareth, 
teaching  by  the  way,  many  flock  round  Him  to  hear  His 
wonderful  words.  Passing  along  the  level  and  sandy  shore, 
where  the  fishermen's  boats  were  drawn  up,  He  sees 
amongst  them  the  boats  of  Simon  and  Andrew,  and  of 

»  So  early,  Augustine,  and  recently,  Krafft,  Stier,  Greawell,  Alford. 
•  See  Ebrard,  807. 


230  THE  LITE   OP   OUR   LOED. 

James  and  John,  who  having  been  fishing,  were  now  wash- 
ing their  nets.  As  the  people  pressed  upon  Him,  He  re- 
quests Simon  to  push  off  his  boat  from  the  shore  a  little 
way,  that  from  it  He  may  teach  the  multitude  as  they 
stand  before  Him.  After  His  discourse  is  ended,  He 
directs  Simon  and  Andrew,  and  perhaps  also  others  with 
them,  to  push  out  into  the  deep  waters  and  let  down  the 
net.  This,  after  a  little  hesitation  arising  from  the  ill-suc- 
cess of  their  labors  the  previous  night,  Simon  does,  and 
they  take  so  great  a  number  of  fish  that  the  net  begins  to 
break.  He  now  beckons  to  those  in  the  other  boat,  James 
and  John,  and  their  companions,  who  had  doubtless  been 
watching  the  whole  proceeding,  and  who  now  come  to 
their  help,  and  both  boats  are  so  filled  as  to  be  in  danger 
of  sinking.  This  unexpected  success,  and  all  the  attendant 
circumstances,  make  such  a  powerful  impression  upon 
Simon's  mind,  that  acting  with  his  usual  impetuosity  he 
casts  himself  at  the  Lord's  feet,  saying,  "  Depart  from  me 
for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  O  Lord."  All  are  astonished  to  see 
a  Divine  hand  in  what  had  happened.  Soon  after  this, 
probably  so  soon  as  they  reached  the  shore,  He  calls  Simon 
and  Andrew,  in  whose  ship  he  still  was,  to  follow  him,  for 
He  will  make  them  fishers  of  men.  During  this  time  James 
and  John  had  gone  a  little  distance  from  them,  and  were 
engaged  in  repairing  the  net  that  had  been  broken.  Walk- 
ing upon  the  shore  He  goes  to  them  and  calls  them  also  to 
follow  Him,  and  they,  leaving  their  father  and  servants,  fol- 
low nim. 

In  this  way  may  we  find  a  natural  and  easy  solution  of 
the  apparent  discrepancies  between  Matthew  and  Mark  on 
the  one  hand  and  Luke  on  the  other.  Luke  alone  relates 
that  Jesus  spake  to  the  people  from  Simon's  boat,  and  after- 
ward directed  him  to  fish,  and  shows  in  what  relation  this 
fishing  stood  to  the  subsequent  call  of  the  fishermen. 
Matthew  and  Mark  omit  all  but  the  fact  that  they  were 


JESUS  TEACHES  AND   HEALS   AT   CAPERNAUM.  231 

engaged  in  their  usual  work  of  fishing  when  thus  called. 
There  is  then  no  such  opposition  in  the  accounts  as  to  make 
it  necessary  to  refer  them  to  different  events.1 

On  the  first  Sabbath  following  the  call  of  the  four  dis- 
ciples, he  enters  the  synagogue  and  teaches.  His  teaching 
excited  general  astonishment,  but  not  the  envy  that  mani- 
fested itself  at  Nazareth.  Present  in  the  synagogue  was  a 
man  possessed  with  a  devil,  whom  He  heals,  and  through 
this  miracle,  thus  publicly  performed,  His  fame  spreads 
rapidly  through  all  Galilee,  (Mark  i.  28.)  It  is  to  be  noted 
that  he  did  not  here,  or  subsequently,  permit  evil  spirits  to 
bear  witness  to  His  Divine  character  or  Messianic  claims, 
(Mark  i.  34  ;  Luke  iv.  41.)  The  ground  of  this  imposition  of 
silence  may  have  been,  that  the  intent  with  which  such 
witness  was  offered  was  evil,  and  that  it  would  also  have 
tended  to  evil  by  awaking  premature  and  unfounded  ex- 
pectations as  to  His  future  work. 

From  the  synagogue  the  Lord  proceeds  to  the  house  of 
Simon  and  Andrew,  where  He  heals  Simon's  wife's  mother. 
As  mention  is  made  by  John  (i.  44)  of  Bethsaida,  as  the 
city  of  Peter  and  Andrew,  it  has  been  conjectured  that  the 
house  at  Capernaum  was  that  of  the  parents  of  Simon's 
wife ;  but  against  this  is  the  expression  "  house  of  Simon 
and  Andrew,"  which  implies  the  joint  ownership  of  the  two 
brothers.  It  is  therefore  more  probable  that  they  had  now 
left  Bethsaida  and  taken  up  their  residence  at  Capernaum.' 
The  healing  of  Peter's  wife's  mother  seems  to  have  been  at 
the  close  of  the  synagogue  service,  and  before  evening,  for 
at  evening  all  that  were  diseased  and  possessed  were 
brought  to  Him.    The  synagogue  service  closed  at  or  be- 

>  In  this  general  result  agree  Lightfoot,  Newcome,  Townsend,  Robinson, 
Wieseler,  Teschendorf,  Lichtenstein,  Ebrard.  For  an  answer  to  objections, 
see  Blunt,  Scriptural  Coincidences,  256,  note. 

*  This  may  be  a  slight  confirmation  of  the  supposition  that  there  was  but 
one  Bethsaida,  and  that  east  of  the  Jordan. 


232  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LOED. 

fore  noon,  and  it  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  she 
"  ministered  unto  them,"  that  she  served  them  at  the  table 
at  the  midday  meal.  According  to  Josephus,1  the  hour  of 
this  meal  was,  on  the  Sabbath,  the  sixth,  or  twelve  o'clock. 
That  the  sick  should  wait  till  the  sun  was  gone  down, 
(Mark  i.  32,)  may  be  referred  to  the  great  scrupulosity  of 
the  Jews  in  regard  to  the  Sabbath.* 


May,  781.     a.  d.  28. 

The  next  morning,  rising  up  early,  Jesus  goes  out  into  Mark  i.  35. 

a  solitary  place  to  pray.     Simon  and  others  go  out  to  seek  Luke  iv.  42. 
Him  because  the  multitude  waited  for  Him.     He  replies, 

that  He  must  also  preach  in  the  neighboring  towns.    He  Mark  i.  38. 

goes  preaching  in  the  synagogues  and  working  miracles.  Lukx  iv.  43. 

This  quick  departure  from  Capernaum  may  perhaps  be 
explained  from  the  Lord's  desire  that  a  period  of  reflection 
should  follow  the  surprise  and  wonder  which  His  words 
and  works  had  excited  in  the  minds  of  the  people.  Their 
astonishment  at  the  supernatural  power  He  manifested,  and 
their  readiness  to  come  to  Him  as  a  healer  of  the  sick,  did 
not  prove  the  possession  of  true  faith.  He  therefore  will 
leave  them  to  meditate  on  what  they  have  seen  and  heard, 
and  depart  to  visit  the  other  cities  and  villages  of  Galilee, 
probably,  as  has  been  suggested,  following  some  fixed  order 
of  visitation.  Galilee  at  that  time,  according  to  Josephus," 
was  very  populous.  "  The  towns  are  numerous,  and  the 
multitude  of  villages  so  crowded  with  men,  owing  to  the 
fecundity  of  the  soil,  that  the  smallest  of  them  contains 
above  15,000  inhabitants."  Elsewhere  he  incidentally  men- 
tions *  that  there  were  204  cities  and  villages  in  Galilee, 
thus  giving  a  population  of  more  than  three  millions.    This 

1  Life,  54.  '  See  Lightfbot  on  Matt.  yiii.  16 ;  and  xii  10. 

»  War,  3.  3.  3.  «  Life,  46. 


PIBST  CIECUIT  IN   GALILEE.  233 

statement  is  confirmed  in  general  by  Dion  Cassius,  who 
says,  that  under  Hadrian  985  villages  of  the  Jews  were  laid 
waste.1  Making  all  necessary  allowance  for  the  exaggera- 
tion of  Josephus  in  regard  to  the  populousness  of  each  vil- 
lage, still  it  is  apparent  that  the  land  was  crowded  with 
people,  and  that  the  Lord,  with  all  His  activity,  could, 
during  the  brief  period  of  His  ministry,  have  visited  but  a 
part  of  the  towns.  We  see  also  whence  came  the  multi- 
tudes who  seem  to  have  followed  Him  wherever  He 
went.* 

That  this,  the  Lord's  first  circuit  with  His  disciples,  must 
have  continued  some  time,  appears  from  the  statements  of 
the  Evangelists,  (Mark  L  39 — ii.  1 ;  Luke  iv.  44 ;  Matt.  iv. 
23,)  though  their  language  may  perhaps  describe  His  gen- 
eral activity  rather  than  any  particular  period  of  it.  The 
expressions  in  Mark  ii.  1,  Si  rj^poiv  u  after  some  days,"  is 
indefinite,  and  its  length  must  be  otherwise  determined. 
The  attempt  ot  Greswell  to  show,  from  the  number  of 
places  He  would  visit,  and  the  length  of  the  stay  He  would 
make  in  each,  that  the  duration  of  a  circuit  would  never  be 
less  than  three  months,  and  probably  never  less  than  four, 
rests  upon  no  sound  basis.  Ellicott,  (168,)  going  to  the 
other  extreme,  makes  this  circuit  to  have  lasted  only  four 
or  five  days.  It  is  intrinsically  improbable  that,  as  Greswell 
supposes,  Jesus  should  have  journeyed  now  wholly  around 
Galilee,  keeping  on  its  boundary  lines.  What  particular 
parts  of  the  province  He  at  this  time  visited,  we  have  no 
data  to  decide,  but  it  is  certain  that  early  in  His  ministry 
He  visited  the  cities  of  Bethsaida  and  Chorazin,  adjacent  to 
Capernaum,  and  labored  much  in  them,  though  of  these 
labors  there  is  little  or  no  mention,  (Matt.  xi.  21.)  His 
fame  rapidly  spread,  and  soon  the  people  from  the  regions 
adjacent  to  Galilee  began  to  gather  to  him. 

,  81.  •  See  Greswell,  iv.  486. 


234  THE  LIFE   OP  OUR  LORD. 

Of  His  works  of  healing  during  the  first  circuit,  no 
instance  is  given,  unless  the  healing  of  the  leper  (Matt.  viii. 
2 ;  Luke  v.  12 ;  Mark  i.  40)  took  place  at  this  time. 
Matthew  places  it  immediately  after  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  Luke  introduces  it  with  no  mark  of  time  :  "  And  it 
came  to  pass  when  He  was  in  a  certain  city,"  <fcc.  Mark 
connects  it  with  the  first  circuit  in  Galilee,  but  with  no 
mention  of  place.  That  this  healing  is  not  chronologically 
placed  by  Matthew,  appears  from  the  whole  arrangement 
of  chapters  viii.  and  ix.  The  first  verse  of  chapter  viii. 
more  properly  belongs  to  the  conclusion  of  the  history  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  verse  second  begins  the  narra- 
tive of  healings  and  other  miracles,  of  which  ten  particular 
examples  are  successively  recorded,  but  without  regard  to 
the  exact  order  of  time  in  which  they  occurred.  After 
healing  the  leper,  Jesus  commands  him  to  go  and  show 
himself  to  the  priests,  and  to  say  nothing  to  any  one  else 
of  the  miracle,  (Matt.  viii.  4.)  This  command  of  silence 
plainly  implies  that  the  miracle  had  been  done  privately, 
and  not  in  the  presence  of  the  multitude,  and  could  not 
have  been,  therefore,  as  He  came  from  the  Mount,  for  great 
crowds  then  followed  him.  Nor  in  the  presence  of  the 
people  could  a  leper  have  approached  Him.1  This  com- 
mand to  keep  silence  the  leper  disobeys,  and  every  where 
publishes  abroad  what  Jesus  had  done.  This  wonderful 
cure,  for  leprosy  was  deemed  incurable,  made  the  people  to 
throng  to  Him  in  such  crowds,  that  He  could  no  more 
enter  into  any  city.*  He  was  obliged  to  retire  to  the 
desert,  or  uninhabited  places,  to  avoid  them ;  but  even 
then  they  gathered  to  Him  from  every  quarter. 

If  then  the  healing  of  the  leper  be  placed  during  this 
circuit,  it  was  probably  during  the  latter  part  of  it.    As  He 

1  Greswell,  ii.  296,  note,  infers  that  Jesus  was  in  some  bouse  apart  when 
the  leper  applied  to  Him,  and  that  his  cure  took  place  in  private. 
8  Or  into  the  city— i.  e.,  Capernaum.    So  Norton. 


RKTUBN   TO   CAPERNAUM.  235 

proceeded  from  place  to  place,  He  healed  such  sick  per- 
sons as  were  brought  to  Him,  and  the  reports  of  these 
cures  spreading  in  every  direction,  all  in  every  city  would 
be  brought  so  soon  as  His  presence  was  known.  The 
leprosy  may  have  been  one  of  the  last  forms  of  disease  He 
healed,  partly  because  of  want  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
lepers,  and  partly  because  it  was  difficult  for  them,  amidst 
such  crowds,  to  get  access  to  Him.  But  why  in  this  case 
should  silence  be  enjoined?  And  why,  after  He  had 
wrought  so  many  other  cures,  should  this  have  aroused  so 
much  attention  as  to  make  it  necessary  for  Him  to  avoid 
the  cities  and  go  into  uninhabited  places  ?  The  most  prob- 
able answer  is,  that  the  public  proclamation  of  this  miracle 
gave  the  people  such  conceptions  of  His  mighty  power 
to  heal,  that  all  thronged  to  Him  to  be  healed,  and  thus 
His  teachings,  the  moral  side  of  His  work,  were  thrust  into 
the  shade.  It  was  the  word  which  He  wished  to  make 
prominent,  and  the  work  was  but  subsidiary.  He  would 
not  that  the  people  should  merely  wander  after  Him  as  a 
miracle  worker,  but  should  learn  through  His  works  the 
true  nature  of  the  redemption  He  came  to  proclaim. 


Summer,  781.     a.d.  28. 

After  some  time  the  Lord  returns  to  Capernaum.    So    Mark  ii.  1-12. 
soon  as  it  is  known  that  He  is  returned,  the  multitudes 
begin  to  gather,  bringing  their  sick,  whom  He  healed.     Luke  t.  17-26. 
The  Pharisees  and  doctors  of  the  law  from  all  parts  of  the 
land,  came  to  Capernaum  to  see  and  hear  the  new  proph-    Matt.  ix.  2-8. 
et     A  paralytic  is  brought  to  His  house  upon  a  bed, 
whom  He  heals,  forgiving  his  sins.     This  awakens  the  in- 
dignation of  the  Pharisees,  who  regard  him  as  a  blas- 
phemer.    Leaving  the  city,  He  goes  to  the  seaside  and    Mark  ii.  13,14. 
there  teaches.     Afterward  walking  on  the  shore,  He  saw    Matt.  ix.  9. 
Levi,  the  publican,  sitting  at  the  receipt  of  custom,  whom 
He  calls  to  follow  Him.  Lukx  v.  27,  28. 


236  THE  LITE  OF   OUE  LORD. 

The  order  of  Mark,  who  places  the  healing  of  the  para- 
lytic after  the  return  to  Capernaum,  is  plainly  the  right 
one.'  Matthew,  in  his  grouping  of  the  miracles  in  chapters 
viii.  and  ix.,  does  not  follow  the  order  of  time.  Luke  nar- 
rates it  after  the  healing  of  the  leper,  but  without  specify- 
ing time  or  place.  He  mentions,  however,  the  fact,  that 
there  were  "  Pharisees  and  doctors  of  the  law  sitting  by, 
which  were  come  out  of  every  town  of  Galilee,  and  Judea, 
and  Jerusalem ;  and  the  power  of  the  Lord  was  present  to 
heal  them."  It  is  not  wholly  clear  who  these  persons  were, 
or  why  they  were  now  present.  Greswell  (ii.  298)  cites 
Josephus  to  show  that  they  were  "  a  sort  of  village  school- 
masters, or  a  class  of  inferior  municipal  magistrates,  who 
might  consequently  be  met  with  everywhere."  They  are 
to  be  distinguished  from  the  scribes,  who  came  down 
from  Jerusalem  at  a  later  period,  with  evil  intent,  and  who 
were  sent  apparently  by  His  enemies  to  watch  Him,  (Mark 
iii.  22.)  These,  on  the  contrary,  came  to  be  healed,  or  to 
see  and  hear  Him  whose  fame  had  gone  so  widely  abroad. 
There  is  no  distinction  taken  by  the  Evangelist  between 
those  from  Galilee  and  those  from  Judea  and  Jerusalem,  as 
if  the  latter  were  present  from  any  special  cause.  At  this 
period  of  the  Lord's  career  the  nature  of  His  work  was 
very  imperfectly  understood ;  and  many  in  every  part  of  the 
land  and  of  every  class,  looking  for  the  Messiah,  would  be 
naturally  attracted  to  one  who  showed  such  wonderful 
power  in  word  and  deed.  But  in  a  little  time,  as  His  teach- 
ings became  more  distinctly  known,  His  disregard  of 
merely  legal  righteousness,  His  neglect  of  their  traditions, 
His  high  claims  as  a  Divine  Person,  awakened  great  and 
general  hostility.  We  see  here  how  these  scribes,  who 
came,  perhaps  hoping  to  find  in  Him  their  Messiah,  per- 
haps to  judge  by  personal  observation  how  far  the  popular 

1  So  Robinson,  Tischeudorf,  Alford,  GreswelL 


THE  CALL   OF  LEVI.  237 

reports  respecting  Him  were  true,  were  turned  into  ene- 
mies and  accusers  when  He  said  to  the  paralytic,  "  Thy  sins 
be  forgiven  thee,"  which  was  to  speak  blasphemy,  because 
implying  an  equality  with  God. 

There  are  several  allusions  to  the  Lord's  teaching  by 
the  seaside.  Whether  He  now  stood  upon  the  shore  or 
entered  a  boat,  does  not  appear.  It  was  not  however  till 
afterward  ( Mark  iii.  9)  that  He  commanded  that  a  small 
ship  should  wait  on  Him.  Thomson  (i.  548)  speaks  of  the 
small  creeks  or  inlets  near  Tell  Hum,  "  where  the  ship 
could  ride  in  safety  only  a  few  feet  from  the  shore,  and 
where  the  multitude,  seated  on  both  sides,  and  before  the 
boat,  could  listen  without  distraction  or  fatigue.  As  if  on 
purpose  to  furnish  seats,  the  shore  on  both  sides  of  those 
narrow  inlets  is  piled  up  with  smooth  boulders  of  basalt." 

The  road  from  Damascus  to  the  cities  along  the  coast 
passed  by  "  Jacob's  bridge "  over  the  Jordan,  and  thence 
along  the  shore  of  the  lake.  It  is  probable  that  the  place 
of  toll,  where  Levi  sat,  was  upon  this  road,  near  its  en- 
trance into  the  city.1  The  manner  of  this  call,  like  the 
call  of  Simon  and  Andrew,  and  James  and  John,  presup- 
poses a  prior  acquaintance  of  Jesus  with  Levi.  The  tax- 
gatherer,  from  his  occupation  and  local  position,  must  have 
been  aware  of  all  that  was  taking  place  in  the  neighbor- 
hood, and  could  not  easily  have  been  ignorant  of  the  Lord's 
person  and  work.  Not  improbably  also,  he  was  already  a 
disciple  in  the  wider  sense  of  the  term,  this  not  involving 
the  giving  up  of  his  usual  calling.  It  would  appear  that 
the  call  was  given  on  the  same  day  in  which  Jesus  taught 
the  people,  and  soon  after  His  discourse  was  ended.8 

By  some  this  call  to  Levi  is  placed  after  his  election  to 
the  Apostle8hip.    Having  been  already  chosen  one  of  the 

»  See  Licbtenstein,  280 ;   Herzog,  Encyc,  xv.  161. 
*  Bieek.  S  vuoptbcbe  Erklarung.  l.  884.    As  to  the  identity  of  Matthew  and 
Levi,  bee  Winer  a.  61. 


238  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

Twelve,  he  returns  to  his  ordinary  labors ;  and  now  is  called 
to  enter  upon  his  apostolic  duties,  to  leave  all  and  follow 
Christ.  But  this  in  itself  is  exceedingly  improbable,  and  we 
shall  soon  see  that  the  election  to  the  apostleship  is  later. 

The  call  of  Levi  to  stand  in  such  intimate  relations  to 
the  Lord,  must  have  been  a  great  stumbling-block  to  all 
the  Pharisaic  party,  and  to  all  those  in  whose  hearts  na- 
tional pride  and  hatred  of  foreign  rule  were  ardent.  The 
occupation  of  the  publican  was  odious,  if  not  in  itself  dis- 
graceful, as  a  sign  and  proof  of  their  national  degradation ; 
and  the  selection  of  disoiples  from  this  class  to  be  His  con- 
stant attendants,  by  one  who  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah, 
must  have  strongly  prejudiced  many  against  Him  and  His 
work.1  Such  selection  implies,  also,  that  already  the  Lord 
was  turning  away  from  the  legally  righteous,  the  Pharisees, 
because  His  words  found  so  little  entrance  into  their  hearts, 
and  was  turning  to  those  who,  though  despised  as  publicans 
and  sinners,  were  nevertheless  ready  to  receive  the  truth. 
Unable  to  draw  the  priests  into  His  service,  He  calls  fisher- 
men; and  what  He  cannot  accomplish  because  of  the 
unbelief  of  Pharisees,  He  will  do  through  the  faith  of 
publicans. 

Many  bring  the  feast  which  Levi  made  for  the  Lord 
(Luke  v.  29 ;  see,  also,  Matt.  ix.  10 ;  Mark  ii.  15)  into  im- 
mediate connection  with  his  call.*  Still  there  is  nothing  in 
the  language  of  the  Evangelists  that  implies  immediate 
sequence,  and  as  Capernaum  doubtless  continued  to  be  his 
residence,  and  to  which  he  frequently  returned,  the  feast 
may  with  equal  likelihood  have  taken  place  at  a  later  time, 
and  be  here  related,  in  order  to  bring  together  all  that  con- 
cerned him  personally.* 

»  "  The  Talmud,"  says  Lightfoot,  iii.  61,  hath  this  canon:  "  'A  Pharisee 
that  turns  publican,  they  turn  him  out  of  his  order.' " 

a  Lichtenstein,  Tischendorf,  Stier. 

•  So  Lightfoot,  Newcome,  Townsend,  Robinson.  Newcome,  259,  refers  to 
the  Harmony  of  Chemnitius,  "where  it  appears  that  Levi's  call  and  feast 


PLUCKING  THE  EARS  OP  CORN.  239 

The  chronological  connection  between  this  feast  and 
the  healing  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus  (Matt.  ix.  18-25) 
will  be  examined  when  we  reach  this  miracle. 

Greswell  (ii.  39V)  attempts  to  show  that  the  feast  of 
Matthew  (Matt.  ix.  10)  was  different  from  that  mentioned 
by  Mark  and  Luke  ;  that  the  former  was  later,  and  not  in 
the  house  of  Levi ;  and  that  at  this  feast,  only  the  disciples 
of  John  were  present.  This  view  removes  some  difficulties, 
but  the  arguments  in  its  favor  are  more  ingenious  than 
convincing. 


Summer,  781.     a.  d.  28. 

During  this  sojourn  in  Capernaum,  the  Lord  with  His    Matt.  xii.  1-8. 
disciples  walked  through  the  field3  upon  a  Sabbath  and    Mark  ii.  23-28. 
plucked  and  ate  the  ears  of  corn.     This  was  observed  by    Luke  vi.  1-5. 
some  of  the  Pharisees  who  were  watching  Him,  and  who 
complained  of  it  to  Him  as  a  violation  of  the  Sabbath.   He 
answers  them  by  referring  to  what  David  did,  and  asserts 
His  power  as  8on  of  man  over  the  Sabbath.     Upon  an-    Lukk  vi.  6-11. 
other  Sabbath  He  heals  a  man  with  a  withered  hand,    Matt.  xii.  9-14. 
which  leads  the  Pharisees  to  conspire  with  the  Herodians    Mark  ill.  1-6. 
to  destroy  Him. 

Both  the  time  and  place  of  this  event  have  been  much 
disputed.  It  is  mentioned  by  all  the  Synoptists,  by  Mat- 
thew in  one  connection,  by  Mark  and  Luke  in  another ;  but 
by  none  in  such  a  way  as  to  determine  its  chronological 
succession.  All  agree  that  it  took  place  upon  a  Sabbath, 
and  Luke  (vi.  1)  defines  this  Sabbath  by  the  epithet  "sec- 
ond Sabbath  after  the  first,"  or  "  second  first " — cv  o-a/8/Jara> 
oWepo-irpomj).1     But  what  was  this  second  first  Sabbath? 

were  separated  in  the  most  ancient  harmonies  from  Tatian  in  a.  n.  170  to 
Oerson  a.  d.  1400." 

1  The  right  rendering  is  M  first  after  the  second."     So  Campbell,  Norton, 
Robinson,  Greswell.    For  other  renderings  see  Meyer  in  loco. 


240  THE  LIPB  OF   OUR  LORD. 

No  certain  answer  can  be  given.  Many  doubt  the  correct- 
ness of  the  reading.1  If,  however,  we  receive  it  as  the  right 
reading,  we  have  no  positive  key  to  its  meaning,  as  the 
word,  so  far  as  is  known,  is  used  by  no  other  writer  than 
Luke.  A  great  number  of  different  interpretations  have 
been  suggested."  That  of  Scaliger  has  found  many  advo- 
cates.8 We  give  it  as  stated  by  Lightfoot  on  Matt,  xil  1. 
Provision  was  made  by  the  Law  that  the  sheaf  of  first- 
fruits  should  be  offered  on  the  second  day  of  Passover 
week,  (Levit.  xxiii.  10,  11,)  not  on  the  morrow  after  an  or- 
dinary Sabbath,  but  the  morning  after  the  first  day  of  Pass- 
over week,  which  was  a  Sabbatic  day.  From  the  second 
day  were  numbered  seven  weeks  to  Pentecost — for  the 
day  of  the  sheaf  and  the  day  of  Pentecost  did  mutually  re- 
spect each  other.  The  offering  of  the  sheaf  was  supplica- 
tory, beseeching  a  blessing  on  the  new  corn,  and  leave  to 
eat  and  to  put  in  the  sickle  into  the  standing  corn.  Some 
weeks  intervened,  and  the  calculation  of  the  Sabbaths  was 
by  numbering  them ;  vafSfSarov  8cvrepo-7rpo>Tov,  the  first 
Sabbath  after  the  second  day  of  Passover  ;  the  second  Sab- 
bath after  the  second  day ;  the  third  Sabbath  after  the 
second  day,  and  the  like.  Lightfoot  therefore  concludes 
that  this  was  the  Sabbath  mentioned  John  v.  9,  or  that 
next  after  it. 

Wieseler  (231)  defends  the  view  that  the  Jewish  years 
were  reckoned  by  a  series,  or  cycle  of  sevens,  and  the  first 
Sabbath  of  the  second  year  of  one  of  these  cycles  is  meant, 
or  the  first  Sabbath  in  Nisan.4  Others  have  understood  a 
Sabbath  of  the  second  rank,  or  a  feast  day  immediately  fol- 

1  So  Alford,  who  says :  "  It  is  not  altogether  clear  that  the  word  ought 
to  be  here  at  all."  Meyer  rejects  it,  and  Lichtenstein,  Browne,  Bleek  ;  Tesch- 
endorf rejected  it  at  first,  but  restored  it  in  his  Synopsis,  1854.  Winer  de* 
fends  it 

1  See  Meyer  in  loco. 

»  So  A.  Clarke,  Bloomfield,  Robinson,  De  Wette. 

«  With  Wieseler,  Teschendorf,  Oosterzee,  Ellicott;  contra,  Winer,  ii.  348. 


PLUCKING  THE  EARS  OP  COEN.  241 

lowing  a  Sabbath ;  others  a  Sabbath  preceded  by  a  feast 
day ;  others  the  first  week  Sabbath  in  a  Passover  week ; 
others  the  first  Sabbath  of  the  second  month ;  others  the 
first  week  Sabbath  after  the  great  feasts.  The  last  view ' 
makes  the  first  week  Sabbath  after  Passover  to  be  the  first- 
first  ;  the  first  after  Pentecost  to  be  the  second-first ;  the 
first  after  Tabernacles  the  third-first.  In  like  manner,  we 
have  now  in  common  use  the  designations,  first  Sunday 
after  Epiphany,  the  first  after  Easter,  the  first  after  Trinity. 
Browne  (657)  remarks  :  "Of  all  the  explanations  known  to 
me  this  seems  the  best,  indeed  the  only  likely  one."  Clin- 
ton calls  it  "  equally  probable  "  as  that  first  mentioned.* 

In  this  chaos  of  interpretations,  the  mention  of  this  Sab- 
bath as  the  second-first  gives  us  no  chronological  aid.  The 
circumstance,  however,  that  the  disciples  plucked  the  ears 
of  corn  and  did  eat,  defines  the  season  of  the  year  as  that 
when  the  corn  was  ripe.  The  kind  of  grain  is  not  men- 
tioned, whether  barley,  which  was  earliest,  or  wheat,  which 
was  later.  Barley  harvest  was  regarded  as  beginning  from 
the  second  day  of  the  Passover,  and  hence  it  has  been  in- 
ferred that  this  incident  was  after  this,  as  no  one  was  per- 
mitted to  gather  any  corn  till  the  sheaf  of  first-fruits  had 
been  waved.  The  wheat  harvest  was  ripe  and  gathered  in 
May  or  June.  Robinson  speaks  of  seeing  the  wheat  ripen- 
ing upon  the  9th  May ;  and  he  also  speaks  of  the  people 
near  Tiberias  as  engaged  in  gathering  the  wheat  harvest 
upon  the  1 9th  June.  We  have,  then,  April,  May,  and  June, 
in  either  of  which  months  this  plucking  and  eating  of  the 
corn  may  have  taken  place.  It  is  erroneously  said  by  A. 
Clarke  that  it  cannot  u  be  laid  after  Pentecost,  because  then 
the  harvest  was  fully  in."  Thomson  states  that  the  Syrian 
harvest  extends  through  several  months,  and  "  the  wheat 

>  Grotinf,  Hammond,  Norton. 

•  For  a  brief  statement  of  opinions,  see  Winer,  ii.  848 ;  also  Greswell, 
ii.800. 

11 


242  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

is  suffered  to  become  dead  ripe,  and  as  dry  as  tinder  before 
it  is  cut."  Even  if  the  harvest  generally  was  reaped,  par- 
ticular fields  may  still  have  been  ungathered,  or  this  been 
that  which  was  left  for  gleaners. 

Without  attaching  any  importance  to  a  conclusion,  con- 
fessedly so  dubious,  we  are  inclined  to  regard  this  second- 
first  Sabbath,  as  the  first  after  Pentecost,  which  was  this 
year  the  19th  May.  If  this  be  correct,  the  ministry  of  the 
Lord  in  Galilee  had  now  continued  about  two  months. 

Where  did  this  event  take  place  ?  It  is  narrated  by  all 
the  Synoptists  as  occuring  just  before  the  healing  of  the 
man  with  the  withered  hand,  and  this  healing  was  in  the 
synagogue  at  Capernaum.  aAnd  He  entered  again  into 
the  synagogue,"  (Mark  iii.  1,)  that  is,  the  synagogue  al- 
ready mentioned.1  This  appears  also  from  the  mention  of 
His  withdrawal  to  the  sea  after  the  healing,  (Mark  iii.  7 ; 
see  also  Luke  vi.  6.)  That  the  field  where  the  ears  were 
plucked  was  not  far  distant  from  Capernaum,  appears  from 
Matthew  xii.  9,  for  the  Pharisees  who  had  blamed 
the  disciples  for  that  act,  are  spoken  of  as  members  of 
that  synagogue.  "  He  went  into  their  synagogue."  *  They 
were,  therefore,  the  Pharisees  of  Capernaum,  and  the  field 
of  corn  was  in  the  neighborhood  of  that  city,  and  within 
the  limits  of  a  Sabbath  day's  journey. 

We  may,  then,  give  the  following  order  of  events  as 
one  intrinsically  probable.  The  Lord,  after  His  return 
from  His  first  circuit,  remained  some  days,  or  weeks,  at 
Capernaum,  and  upon  a  Sabbath  walked  out  with  His  dis- 
ciples through  the  fields  in  the  vicinity  of  the  city.  As  He 
had  already,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Pharisees,  broken  the 
sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  by  healing  upon  it,  (Mark  i.  23  and 
30,)  they  followed  Him  to  watch  Him,  perhaps  to  note 
whether  His  walk  upon  that  day  was  longer  than  the  law 

Alexander,  Meyer.  •  Meyer,  Nortoi. 


HEALING   THE  MAN   WITH    A    WITHERED   HAND.         243 

permitted,  (Acts  i.  12.)  Seeing  His  disciples  plucking  and 
rubbing  the  ears  of  corn  in  their  hands,  they  fancied  the 
act  a  violation  of  the  law.  It  has  sometimes  been  said  that 
the  Pharisees  did  not  think  it  sinful  to  pull  and  eat  the 
grain,  but  it  was  so  to  rub  it  in  their  hands,  all  prepa- 
ration of  food  being  forbidden.  This  is  doubtful.  Light- 
foot  says :  "  The  plucking  of  ears  of  corn  on  the  Sabbath 
was  forbidden  by  their  canons,  verbatim  :  *  He  that  reapeth 
corn  on  the  Sabbath,  to  the  quantity  of  a  fig,  is  guilty.  And 
plucking  corn  is  as  reaping.' "  !  If  done  presumptuously, 
or  without  necessity,  the  punishment  was  death  by  stoning, 
and  hence  the  Lord's  defence  of  the  disciples.  His  answer 
to  their  complaints  could  only  have  angered  them  still  more, 
and  when,  therefore,  He  entered  the  following  Sabbath 
into  the  synagogue,  (Luke  vi.  6,)  it  was  to  be  expected 
that  they  would  carefully  watch  all  that  He  did  to  find 
sonic  sufficient  ground  of  accusation  against  Him.  His  re- 
newed violation  of  the  Sabbath  by  healing  the  man  with  a 
withered  hand,  added  to  their  indignation,  and  they  now 
began  to  plot  how  they  might  destroy  Him. 

Luke  (vi.  6)  defines  the  time  of  this  work  of  healing  as 
"on  another  Sabbath."  Whether  this  was  the  Sabbath 
immediately  following  that  on  which  He  walked  through 
the  corn-field,  is  not  said,  though  it  is  probable.*  The  alli- 
ance of  the  Herodians  with  the  Pharisees,  does  not  imply 
that  Herod  himself  had  at  this  time  any  knowledge  of  Je- 
sus, or  took  any  steps  against  Him.  The  Herodians  were 
those  among  the  people  who,  though  hating  the  Roman 
rule,  favored  the  pretensions  of  Herod's  family  to  kingly 
power.    In  case  of  national  independence  this  family  should 

*  See  also  Meyer  on  Matt  xii.  1. 

•  Wieseler  (287)  conjectures  that  it  was  a  feast  Sabbath  and  the  day  fol- 
lowing that  mentioned  in  verse  1st.  This  seems  to  have  little  or  no  basis. 
Meyer's  assertion,  that  Matthew  (xii.  9)  puts  the  two  events  on  the  same  Sab- 
bath in  opposition  to  Luke,  is  wholly  baseless. 


244  THE  LIFE   OP  OUR  LORD. 

reign  rather  than  the  house  of  the  Maccabees,  or  any  other 
claimants.  They  were  never  numerous,  for  the  great  body 
of  the  nation  looked  upon  that  family  as  foreigners  and 
usurpers.  "  Why  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians,"  says  Al- 
ford,  "  should  now  combine,  is  not  apparent."  The  Hero- 
dians would,  however,  be  naturally  jealous  and  watchful 
of  any  one  whom  they  supposed  to  be  a  claimant  of  the 
throne  in  opposition  to  the  house  of  Herod  ;  and  the  Phari- 
sees, being  angry  at  Jesus  on  religious  grounds,  a  union  of 
the  two  for  His  destruction  was  very  easily  made.  We 
need  not  suppose  that  this  conspiracy  against  Him  as  yet 
included  others  than  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians  of  Caper- 
naum and  its  immediate  vicinity,  (see  Matt.  xii.  14  ;  Mark 
iii.  6.)  Doubtless,  very  soon  after  this,  His  enemies  here 
took  counsel  with  His  enemies  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  con- 
spiracy against  Him  became  general. 

It  appears  from  these  narratives  that,  almost  from  the 
very  beginning  of  His  Galilean  work,  the  Lord  encountered 
the  active  hostility  of  the  Pharisees  of  that  province.  At 
the  feast  (John  v.  1)  He  had  aroused  the  anger  of  the 
Pharisees  at  Jerusalem  by  healing  the  impotent  man  on 
the  Sabbath,  (verses  16  and  18;)  and  at  Capernaum  He 
continued  again  and  again  to  heal  upon  that  day,  and  in  the 
synagogue  itself.  Their  fanatical  zeal  could  not  allow  such 
violations  of  the  law  to  pass  unnoticed,  and  as  Jesus  de- 
fended them  on  the  ground  of  His  divine  right  to  wor)c, 
even  on  the  Sabbath,  He  seemed  to  them  not  only  a  Sab- 
bath breaker,  but  also  a  blasphemer.  At  first  they  plotted 
secretly  against  Him,  the  people  at  large  being  friendly  to 
Him.  Whilst  in  the  full  flush  of  His  popularity  they  dared 
take  no  steps  openly  against  Him,  but  waited  till  some  im- 
prudence, or  error,  or  folly  on  His  part,  or  the  fickleness  of 
the  multitude,  should  put  Him  in  their  power.  There  was 
early  an  active  and  constant  correspondence  between  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees  in  Galilee  and  those  in  Jerusalem ;  and 


JESUS  WITHDRAWS  TO  THE   SEA-SHORE.  245 

at  intervals  deputations  from  the  latter  came  down  to  con- 
sult with  the  former,  and  to  devise  means  to  hinder  Him  in 
His  work,  and  to  bring  Him  to  punishment.  As  yet  the  fact 
httt  He  had  broken  the  Sabbath  by  healing  upon  it,  does 
not  seem  to  have  turned  the  popular  feeling  at  all  against 
Him,  nor  even  the  assertion  of  His  power  to  forgive  sins. 


Midsummer,  781.     a.  d.  28. 

After  healing  the  man  with  a  withered  hand  Jesus    Matt.  xii.  16-21. 
withdraws  to  the  sea-shore.     Here  great  multitudes  from    Mark  iii.  7-12. 
all  parts  of  the  land  resort  to  Him,  and  He  heals  many.     Matt.  iv.  26. 
As  they  press  upon  Him  to  touch  Him,  He  directs  that 
a  small  ship  be  prepared  to  wait  upon  Him.     Leaving 
the  seaside  He  goes  up  into  a  neighboring  mountain  and    Luke  vi.  12-16. 
spends  the  night  in  prayer.     In  the  morning  He  calls    Mark  iii.  18-19. 
the  disciples  to  Him,  and  from  them  chooses  the  twelve 
Apostles.    The  multitudes  now  gathering  to  Him  He    Matt.  v.  vi.  vii. 
proceeds  to  deliver  the  discourse  called  the  Sermon  on    Lukk  vi.  17-49. 
the  Mount 

From  Matthew  (xii.  15)  it  would  appear  that  Jesus  was 
aware  of  the  purpose  of  the  Pharisees,  and  therefore 
avoided  them.  He  would  not,  except  so  far  as  was  neces- 
sary, come  into  collision  with  them  nor  expose  His  work  to 
injury  through  their  opposition.  It  was  for  this  reason  that, 
having  healed  all  the  sick  among  the  multitudes  that  fol- 
lowed Him,  He  charged  them  that  they  should  not  make 
Him  known,  (v.  16.)  He  was  now  seeking  for  the  humble 
and  repentant,  all  in  whom  He  could  discern  any  sense  of 
sin  or  germs  of  faith,  and  He  would  not  for  their  sakes 
suffer  Himself  to  be  forced  into  a  hostile  attitude  to  the 
^>iritual  leaders  of  the  people.     This  was  the  rule  of  His 

i  net,  as  it  had  been  prophetically  laid  down  by  the  prophet 
Isaiah  (xlii.  2)  :  "  He  shall  not  strive  nor  cry,  neither  shall 
any  man  hear  His  voice  in  the  streets." 


246  THE  LIFE   OP  OUR  LOED. 

The  withdrawal  from  the  city  to  the  sea-shore,  (Mark  iii, 
7,)  whilst  it  had  thus  for  one  end,  to  avoid  His  enemies, 
seems  also  to  have  been  to  find  a  more  convenient  place  for 
teaching  and  healing.  In  the  city  He  was  exposed  to  con- 
stant interruption  through  the  eagerness  of  the  sick  and 
their  friends,  who  pressed  upon  Him  to  touch  Him  ;  and  to 
secure  personal  freedom  He  was  compelled  to  order  a  boat  to 
attend  upon  Him,  that  He  might,  when  necessary,  use  it  as 
a  pulpit  to  address  the  multitude  standing  before  Him  on 
the  shore,  and  perhaps  also  to  withdraw  Himself  wholly 
from  them  by  crossing  the  lake. 

The  fame  of  Jesus  seems  at  this  time  to  have  reached 
every  part  of  the  land.  Crowds  came,  not  only  from 
Galilee  and  Judea,  but  also  from  Idumea  and  from  beyond 
Jordan,  and  from  the  territories  about  Tyre  and  Sidon. 
That  so  great  numbers,  and  from  such  remote  regions,  should 
gather  at  Capernaum,  shows  that  He  remained  at  that  city 
for  some  time  after  His  return  from  His  first  circuit.  It 
was,  doubtless,  not  His  teachings,  but  His  miracles  of  heal- 
ing, that  awakened  such  general  attention,  and  drew  such 
multitudes  after  Him.  Most  came  attracted  by  His  repu- 
tation as  a  healer  of  the  sick.  After  making  all  allowance 
for  the  degraded  condition  of  the  present  inhabitants  of 
Palestine,  the  following  remarks  of  Thomson  (ii.  84)  would 
not  be  inapplicable  to  the  Jews  of  the  Lord's  day:  "Should 
a  prophet  now  arise  with  a  tithe  of  the  celebrity  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  there  would  quickly  be  immense  assemblies 
about  him  from  Galilee,  and  from  Decapolis,  and  from 
Jerusalem,  and  from  Judea,  and  from  beyond  Jordan.  Bad, 
and  stupid,  and  ignorant,  and  worldly,  as  the  people  are, 
their  attention  would  be  instantly  arrested  by  the  name  of 
a  prophet,  and  they  would  flock  from  all  parts  to  see,  henr, 
and  be  healed.  There  is  an  irresistible  bias  in  Oriental*  >f 
all  religions  to  run  after  the  mere  shadow  of  a  prophet,  *-  » 
miracle  worker." 


THE  CHOICE   OF  THE  TWELVE.  247 

That  the  choice  of  the  Twelve  took  place  at  this  time, 
appears  from  the  mention  in  Mark  and  Luke  of  the  various 
parts  of  the  country  from  which  the  multitudes  came. 
According  to  Luke,  (vi.  17,)  they  that  heard  the  discourse 
upon  the  mount  were  from  Judea  and  Jerusalem,  and  from 
the  sea-coast  of  Tyre  and  Sidon.  Mark  (iii.  7,  8)  mentions 
Galilee,  Judea,  Jerusalem,  Idumea,  beyond  Jordan,  and 
about  Tyre  and  Sidon.  Matthew,  (iv.  25,)  who  does  not 
mention  the  choice  of  the  apostles,  but  gives  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  speaks  of  the  great  multitudes  that  followed 
Him  from  Galilee,  Decapolis,  Jerusalem,  Judea,  and  beyond 
J  o n  la n.  It  was  at  this  point,  when  He  had  special  need  of 
their  services,  that  He  selected  twelve  out  of  the  body  of 
His  disciples  "  that  they  should  be  with  Him,  and  that  He 
might  send  them  forth  to  preach,  and  to  have  power  to 
heal  sicknesses  and  to  cast  out  devils,"  (Mark  iii.  14, 15.) 

Whether  some  particular  mountain  is  designated  by  the 
use  of  the  article  by  the  Synoptists,  to  opos,  "the  mountain," 
or  generally  the  ridges  of  hills  on  the  sides  of  the  Lake  of 
Galilee,  as  distinguished  from  the  low  shores,  we  cannot 
easily  decide.  The  Jews  distinguished  the  face  of  the 
country  into  mountains,  plains  and  valleys.  According  to 
Middleton,1  by  the  mountain  is  here  signified  u  the  moun- 
tain district  as  distinguished  from  the  other  two." a  It  is 
most  natural  to  refer  it  to  some  specific  and  well-known 
locality ;  but  it  is  plain  that  the  mountain  here  is  not  the 
same  mentioned  in  Matt.  xiv.  23,  Mark  vi.  46,  John  vi 
3,  where  the  five  thousand  were  fed,  or  that  in  Matt. 
xv.  29,  where  the  four  thousand  were  fed.  We  may  then 
rather  infer  that  in  each  of  these  cases  the  mountain  is  de- 
fined by  the  article,  because  supposed  to  be  already  well 
known  as  the  site  of  the  event.  Where  this  mountain  was 
is  now  only  matter  of  conjecture.    Tradition  has  chosen 

>  Greek  article,  103.  »  See  Ebrard,  849 ;  Meyer  on  Matt.  v.  1. 


248  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LOED. 

the  hill  known  as  the  Horns  of  Hattin  from  its  peculiar 
shape,  and  called  by  the  Latins  the  Mount  of  Beatitudes. 
It  is  a  ridge  not  far  from  Tell  Hum,  about  a  quarter  of  a 
mile  in  length,  running  east  and  west.  At  each  end  rises 
a  small  cone  or  horn.  Its  peculiar  shape  attracts  the  at- 
tention of  the  traveller,  and  is  probably  the  cause  of  its 
selection.  Robinson  contends  that  there  are  a  dozen  other 
mountains  in  the  vicinity  of  the  lake  which  would  answer 
the  purpose  just  as  well ;  and  that  the  tradition  which  has 
selected  this  as  the  site  goes  no  further  back  than  the  13th 
century,  and  is  confined  to  the  Latin  Church.  As  the  same 
tradition  placed  here  also  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand, 
which  is  certainly  an  error,  we  are  the  more  inclined  to  re- 
ject it.1  Stanley,  however,  (360,)  says  :  "  The  situation  so 
strikingly  coincides  with  the  intimations  of  the  Gospel  nar- 
rative as  almost  to  force  the  inference,  that  in  this  instance 
the  eye  of  those  who  selected  the  spot  was  for  once  rightly 
guided." 

We  may  arrange  the  events  preparatory  to  the  delivery 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  the  following  order :  the 
Lord  leaving  Capernaum  in  the  evening  goes  to  the  mount, 
which  cannot  have  been  at  any  great  distance,  and  spends 
the  night  alone.  Very  early  in  the  morning  His  disciples, 
probably  according  to  His  direction,  came  to  Him,  and 
from  them  He  selected  the  Twelve.  By  this  time  the  mul- 
titudes who  had  lodged  in  Capernaum  or  in  its  neighbor- 
hood, learning  whither  He  had  gone,  followed  Him,  and 
then  He  addresses  them. 

As  Matthew  (chs.  v.,  vi.,  vii.)  and  Luke  (vi.  17-49)  in- 
troduce their  reports  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  by  the 
mention  of  differing  circumstances,  and  as  their  reports 
differ  in  many  points,  it  has  been  questioned  Whether  both 
can  refer  to  the  same  discourse.     The  various  opinions  may 

1  Raumer,  32,  note. 


THE  SERMON   ON  THE  MOUNT.  249 

be  reduced  to  three  ■  1st.  That  which  regards  them  as  re- 
ports of  discourses  wholly  distinct,  and  spoken  at  different 
times,  and  perhaps  also  at  different  places.1  2d.  That 
which  regards  them  as  reports  of  distinct  discourses,  but 
spoken  successively :  the  one  before  the  choice  of  the  apos- 
tles, the  other  after  it ;  the  one  to  the  disciples,  the  other 
to  the  multitude ;  the  one  sitting  upon  the  mountain,  the 
other  standing  upon  the  plain."  3d.  That  which  regards 
them  as  abstracts  of  one  and  the  same  discourse.' 

To  determine  which  of  these  views  is  correct,  or  how 
the  respective  discourses  of  Matthew  and  Luke  stand  re- 
lated to  each  other,  we  must  examine  in  detail  the  several 
points  of  likeness  and  unlikeness.  And  1st,  the  difference 
of  place.  Matthew  (v.  1)  says:  "And  seeing  the  multitudes 
He  went  up  into  a  mountain,  and  when  He  was  set  His  dis- 
ciples came  unto  Him.  And  He  opened  His  mouth  and 
taught  them."  Luke  (vi.  17-20)  says,  that  after  the  choice 
of  the  Twelve  "  He  came  down  with  them,  and  stood  in  the 
plain,  (cm  Tvrrav  ir«8tvov,)  and  the  company  of  His  disciples 
and  a  great  multitude  of  people, . . .  which  came  to  hear  Him 
and  to  be  healed  of  their  diseases ;  and  they  that  were 
vexed  with  unclean  spirits :  and  they  were  healed.  And 
the  whole  multitude  sought  to  touch  Him,  for  there  went 
virtue  out  of  Him  and  healed  them  all.  And  He  lifted  up 
His  eyes  on  His  disciples,  and  said,"  <fec.  Thus,  according 
to  Matthew,  the  discourse  was  delivered  by  the  Lord  sit- 
ting upon  the  side  or  top  of  a  mountain ;  according  to 
Luke,  after  He  had  chosen  the  Twelve  He  descended  to  the 
plain,  and  having  healed  the  sick,  addressed  those  present. 
But  the  latter  does  not  say  that  the  discourse  was  spoken 
on  the  plain,  although  He  does  not  mention  any  re-ascent. 
Such  a  re-ascent  is  however  very  probable,  for  it  is  said 
"  that  the  whole  multitude  sought  to  touch  Him  ;  "  and  ae, 

Krafft,  Greswell.  »  Augustine,  Lange. 

»  RobinsoD,  Tischendorf,  Stier. 
11* 


250  THE  LIFE  OP  OUB  LORD. 

when  similarly  pressed  upon  the  sea-shore,  (Mark  iii.  9,)  He 
entered  a  boat  and  taught  from  it ;  so  now  He  would  natu- 
rally ascend  to  a  point  where  they  could  not  reach  Him, 
and  from  which  He  could  easily  be  seen  and  heard  by  all.1 
Some  would  understand  the  "plain"  of  Luke  of  a  level 
spot  on  the  side  of  the  mountain,  or  at  its  foot,  where  the 
multitude  could  sit  or  stand,  this  plain  itself  being,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  sea-shore  from  whence  they  came,  a  part  of  the 
mountain.  Thus  Stanley,  speaking  of  the  hill  of  Hattin, 
says:  "The  plain  on  which  it  stands  is  easily  accessible 
from  the  lake,  and  from  that  plain  to  the  summit  is  but  a 
few  minutes'  walk.  The  platform  at  the  top  is  evidently 
suitable  for  the  collection  of  a  multitude,  and  corresponds 
precisely  to  the  '  level  place ■  mistranslated  '  plain,'  to  which 
He  would  *  come  down,'  as  from  one  of  its  higher  horns,  to 
address  the  people."  *  In  this  way  all  seeming  discrepancy 
between  Matthew  and  Luke  as  to  the  place,  disappears. 
The  choice  of  the  Twelve  was  made  upon  the  mountain  be- 
fore the  multitude  gathered,  which  choice  Matthew  does 
not  mention.  As  the  Lord  beheld  the  people  gathering  to 
Him,  He  goes  down  with  His  disciples  to  meet  them  upon 
some  level  place,  and  after  healing  the  sick,  He  seats  Him- 
self in  a  position,  probably  higher  up  upon  the  hill,  where 
He  can  be  seen  and  heard  by  the  great  crowds,  and  pro- 
ceeds to  address  them.* 

2d.  Difference  of  time.  Following  his  report  of  the 
sermon,  Matthew  relates  (viii.  2-4)  the  healing  of  the  leper 
as  having  immediately  taken  place.  Luke  (vii.  2-10)  re- 
lates the  healing  of  the  centurion's  servant  as  immedi- 
ately following.  As  these  events  were  separated  by  a  con- 
siderable interval  of  time,  so,  it  is  said  by  Krafft  and  others, 

*  So  Robinson,  Har.  193. 

9  So  Tholuck,  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  53,  "a  level  place,  not  a  plain." 

•  See  Ebrard,  3;">0  ;  Stier,  i.  327  ;   Lichteustein,  247.    Alford,  after  Meyer, 
finds  the  two  Evangelists  in  contradiction. 


THE    SERMON    ON   THE   MOUNT.  251 

must  have  been  the  discourses  which  they  respectively 
followed.  But  we  have  already  seen  that  Matthew  is  not 
narrating  events  in  chronological  order,  and  that  the  healing 
of  the  leper  took  place  before  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
We  are  not  therefore  obliged  to  suppose  the  discourses  dis- 
tinct upon  this  ground. 

3d.  Difference  of  audience.  Matthew  (iv.  25)  describes 
the  multitudes  present  as  from  Galilee,  Decapolis,  Jerusa- 
lem, Judea,  and  from  beyond  Jordan ;  Luke  (vi.  17)  as  from 
all  Judea,  Jerusalem,  and  the  sea-coast  of  Tyre  and  Sidon. 
From  this  partial  difference  of  names  Krafft  (83)  infers  that 
those  who  heard  the  discourse  reported  by  Matthew  were 
mostly  Jews,  with  perhaps  a  few  Syrians ;  but  that  those 
who  heard  the  discourse  reported  by  Luke  were  mostly 
from  the  eastern  side  of  Galilee  and  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and 
Sidon.  But  this  inference  is  not  warranted.  In  this  enu- 
meration neither  of  the  Evangelists  designs  to  discriminate 
between  Jewish  and  heathen  lands.  This  appears  from 
Mark,  (iii.  7,  8,)  who  mentions  Galilee,  Judea,  Jerusalem, 
Idumea,  beyond  Jordan,  and  about  Tyre  and  Sidon.  If 
heathen  were  present,  according  to  Luke,  from  Tyre  and 
Sidon,  so  might  they  be  also,  according  to  Matthew,  from 
Decapolis.  The  Evangelists  plainly  all  intend  to  say,  that 
the  crowds  who  were  present  came  from  every  part  of  the 
land ;  and  any  difference  in  the  enumeration  of  the  regions 
whence  they  came  is  unimportant.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
very  particularity  of  the  mention  of  so  many  provinces  by 
each,  sufficiently  shows  that  all  point  to  one  and  the  same 
period. 

4th.  Difference  of  contents.  "Of  107  verses  in  Mat- 
thew, Luke  contains  only  30  ;  his  four  beatitudes  are  bal- 
anced by  as  many  woes ;  and  in  his  text  parts  of  the  sermon 
are  introduced  by  sayings  which  do  not  precede  them  in 
Matthew,  but  which  naturally  connect  with  them."1    But 

*  Alford  on  Matt  v.  1.    See  also  Ores  well,  ii.  429 ;  Krafll,  88. 


252  THE   LITE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

these  differences  are  few  when  compared  with  the  resem- 
blances. The  beginning  and  ending  of  both  are  the  same  ; 
there  is  a  general  similarity  in  the  order,  and  often  identity 
in  the  expressions.  Often  in  the  Evangelists,  when  their 
reports  are  in  substance  the  same,  there  are  many  varia- 
tions.1 That  the  two  discourses  should  have  so  much  in 
common  if  they  were  distinct,  spoken  at  different  times  and 
to  different  audiences,  is  most  improbable.  That  many  of 
the  shorter  proverbial  expressions  might  be  used  at  various 
times  is  natural,  but  not  that  such  similarity  should  prevail 
throughout.' 

The  supposition  that  the  Lord  first  addressed  the  apos- 
tles and  disciples,  which  address  Matthew  gives,  and  then 
the  multitudes,  which  address  Luke  gives,  was  advocated 
by  Augustine,  and  has  been  the  ruling  one  in  the  Latin 
Church.  It  has  been  also  adopted  by  most  of  the  Lutheran 
harmonists,  though  Calvin  calls  this  view  light  and  frivo- 
lous. That  there  is  something  esoteric  in  the  former  and 
exoteric  in  the  latter  may  be  admitted ;  but  this  is  owing 
not  to  the  different  audiences  to  whom  the  discourses  were 
spoken,  but  to  the  different  classes  of  readers  for  which  the 
two  Gospels  were  designed.  It  may  be  that  neither  Mat- 
thew nor  Luke  gives  us  the  exact  discourse  as  it  was 
spoken.  Without  entering  into  the  vexed  question  of 
inspiration,  its  nature  and  degrees,  we  may  say  that  each 
Evangelist,  writing  under  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
made  such  selection  of  the  Lord's  words,  as  well  as  of  the 
events  in  His  history,  and  so  arranged  them,  as  best  to 
meet  the  wants  of  those  for  whom  he  wrote.    That  Luke 

>  Compare  the  Lord's  Prayer  as  given  Matt  vi.  9-12,  and  Luke  xl  2-4 ;  and 
His  discourse  concerning  the  Pharisees,  Matt,  xxiii.  and  Luke  xx.  46. 

*  Neander's  explanation,  224,  that  the  original  document  of  Matthew  of 
Hebrew  origin,  "  passed  through  the  hands  of  the  Greek  editor,  who  has  in- 
serted other  expressions  of  Christ  allied  to  those  in  the  organic  connection  of 
the  discourse,  but  spoken  on  other  occasions,"  is  one  of  those  arbitrary  as- 
sumptions, whose  frequency  makes  so  much  of  German  criticism  worthless. 


JISUS  RETURNS  TO  CAPERNAUM.  253 

should  omit  those  portions  of  the  discourse  having  special 
reference  to  the  Jewish  sects,  and  to  the  Mosaic  laws,  was 
in  accordance  with  the  general  scope  of  his  Gospel  as  de- 
signed for  heathen  Christians;  whilst  Matthew,  on  the 
other  hand,  writing  for  Jewish  Christians,  would  retain 
them.  To  this  Alford  and  others  object  that  in  some  cases 
Luke  is  fuller  than  Matthew,  (compare  Matt.  vii.  1,  2,  and 
Luke  vi  37,  38.)  But,  as  has  been  said,  Matthew  may  not 
give  the  words  of  the  Lord  in  all  their  fulness ;  and  it  is  not 
at  all  inconsistent  with  the  fact  of  an  epitome  that  certain 
thoughts  should  be  more  folly  expanded  than  in  the  origi- 
nal, when  this  original  is  itself  but  an  epitome. 

There  is  still  another  argument  against  the  identity  of 
these  two  discourses,  based  upon  the  fact  that  Matthew 
does  not  relate  his  own  call  (ix.  9)  till  he  had  recorded  the 
sermon.  But  it  is  so  abundantly  established  that  Matthew 
does  not  follow  chronological  order,  that  this  is  of  no  im- 
portance. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  Matthew  gives  this  discourse 
substantially,  if  not  literally,  as  it  was  spoken,  and  that 
Luke  gives  the  same,  but  modified  to  meet  the  wants  of 
that  class  of  readers  for  whom  he  especially  wrote. 


Midsummer,  781.    a.  d.  28. 

After  the  sermon  was  ended  Jesus  returns  to  Caper- 
naum, still  followed  by  the  multitudes.     Immediately    Matt.  viii.  6-13. 
after  His  return  he  heals  the  centurion's  servant.     The    Luke  vii.  1-10. 
crowds  continuing  to  follow  Him  so  that  He  has  no  time    Mark  iii.  20,  21. 
even  to  eat,  His  friends  become  alarmed  at  His  in- 
cessant labors,  and  thinking  Him  beside  Himself,  at- 
tempt to  restrain  Him. 

The  form  of  expression,  (Luke  vii.  1,)  "Now  when  He 
had  ended  all  His  sayings  in  the  audience  of  the  people,  He 
entered  into  Capernaum,"  shows  that  He  was  at  no  great 


254  THE  LIFE   OF    OUR    LORD. 

distance,  and  that  no  long  interval  elapsed  between  the 
discourse  and  the  entry.  Mark,  (iii.  19,)  after  mentioning 
the  election  of  the  Twelve,  merely  adds,  "  And  they  went 
into  a  house,"  or  more  literally,  "  went  home,"  «is  otxov, 
that  is,  to  His  house  in  Capernaum. 

Matthew  (viii.  1)  speaks  of  the  great  multitudes  that 
followed  Him  descending  from  the  mountain  ;  and  Mark 
(iii.  20)  of  "  the  multitude  coming  together  again,"  as  if 
after  a  temporary  dispersion,  such  as  was  natural  in  coming 
down  from  the  mountain,  they  had  re-assembled  in  the 
city,  and  doubtless  before  His  dwelling.  So  earnest  were 
they  to  see  and  hear  Him,  and  to  bring  to  Him  their  sick, 
that  He  found  no  time  even  to  eat,  (Mark  iii.  20.)  This 
intense  activity  in  teaching  and  working,  without  any  in- 
tervals for  repose,  alarmed  His  friends.  It  is  not  certain 
who  are  here  meant  by  "  His  friends,"  ot  trap  avrov.  The 
translation  in  the  margin,  '*  His  kinsmen,"  is  adopted  by 
many.1  Some  suppose  His  unbelieving  brothers  to  be 
especially  meant.9  Some,  as  Lichtenstein,  make  them  to 
be  the  disciples  other  than  the  Twelve ;  and  others  still,  as 
Ebrard,  the  strangers  or  people  of  the  house,  with  whom 
He  was  staying.  Probably  they  were  His  relatives,  His 
mother  and  brethren,  who,  if  still  resident  in  Nazareth,  had 
heard  of  His  great  labors,  and  now  came  to  seek  Him.  Their 
affection  would  naturally  make  them  anxious  about  Him  ; 
and  their  near  relationship  to  Him  would  permit  them  to 
say,  "  He  is  beside  Himself,"  which  any  of  His  disciples 
would  scarcely  do.  This  however  does  not  indicate  that 
in  their  opinion  He  was  actually  insane,  but  merely  that  He 
was  prosecuting  His  work  with  too  great  zeal  and  energy. 
As  expressed  by  Stier,  "  He  does  too  much ;  forgets  all 
moderation — is  out  of  His  senses,  knows  not  what  He  is 

1  So  Alexander,  Stier,  Alford. 

9  Meyer  makes  them  to  have  recently  arrived  from  Nazareth ;  compart 
t.  31 ;  Lange  to  be  already  settled  at  Capernaum. 


JESUS  AT  NAIN.  255 

doing,  so  that  we  have  to  interfere."  This  language  did 
not  so  much  refer  to  the  matter  as  to  the  manner  of  His 
work.  Perhaps  they  may  have  had  in  mind  that  He  had 
spent  the  night  alone  upon  the  mountain,  and  so  had  been 
for  a  time  without  food  and  sleep. 

It  appears  from  Luke,  (vii.  1)  compared  with  Matt.  (viii. 
5,)  that  the  healing  of  the  centurion's  servant  was  on  the 
day  of  His  return  from  the  mount.  As  the  centurion  seems 
to  have  been  a  resident  of  Capernaum,  for  he  built  them 
their  synagogue,  (Luke  vii.  5,)  it  is  not  improbable  that  a 
Roman  garrison  was  stationed  there.1  That  the  elders 
should  come  to  make  the  request  is  wholly  in  accordance 
with  oriental  usage.*  That  they  were  willing  to  make  this 
request,  shows  that  at  this  time  no  general  hostility  had  yet 
developed  itself  against  Him  in  Capernaum. 


Midsummer,  781.     a.  d.  28. 

The  day  following  the  healing  of  the  centurion's    Luke  vii.  11—17. 
servant  He  goes  to  Nain,  accompanied  by  the  disciples 
and  many  people.     lie  there  restores  to  life  the  son  of 
a  widow  as  they  were  bearing  him  to  the  grave.  Whilst 
continuing  His  ministry  in  that  part  of  Galilee,  John  the    Matt.  xi.  2-19. 
Baptist,  who  hears  of  His  works,  sends  from  his  prison    Luke  vii.  18-85. 
a  message  to  Him  by  two    of  his  disciples.     Jesus 
answers  their  question,  and  addresses  the  multitude 
respecting  John. 

The  order  of  events  here  will  depend  upon  the  reading, 
Luke  vii.  11,  whether  cv  ry  «£ts,  or  cv  tw  c^s,  "  the  day 
after,"  or  u  afterward."  The  weight  of  authority  is  in  favor 
of  the  former." 

The  Lord  gives  Himself  no  rest,  but  enters  immediately 
upon  new  labors.     From  this  time  the  Twelve  were  con- 

»  Trench,  Mir.  184.  *  Thomson,  i.  818. 

•  Teschendorf,  Robinson,  Wieseler,  Alford ;  contra,  Meyer,  Stier. 


256  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

stantly  with  Him  till  sent  forth  upon  their  mission.  Beside 
them  many  of  the  other  disciples  now  accompanied  Him,  as 
well  as  much  people. 

Nain  lies  on  the  northwest  declivity  of  the  hill  of  Little 
Hermon,  commanding  an  extensive  view  over  the  plain 
of  Esdraelon,  and  the  northern  hills.  It  is  now  an  insig- 
nificant village,  with  no  remains  of  any  importance.  "  No 
convent,  no  tradition  marks  the  spot.  But  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, the  name  is  sufficient  to  guarantee  its  authen- 
ticity." l 

As  the  Jews  usually  buried  the  dead  upon  the  same 
day  they  died  and  before  sundown,2  it  has  been  questioned 
how  He  could  have  reached  Nain  from  Capernaum  so  early 
in  the  day  as  to  meet  the  funeral  procession.  But  as  the 
distance  is  only  about  twenty-five  miles,  and  probably  less, 
it  might  be  walked  in  seven  or  eight  hours.  As  the  orien- 
tals walk  rapidly,  and  commence  their  journeys  early  in  the 
morning,  He  might  have  reached  Nain  by  noon,  or  a  little 
after. 

The  restoration  to  life  of  the  widow's  son  was  the  first 
work  of  this  kind  the  Lord  had  wrought,  and  naturally  pro- 
duced a  most  powerful  impression  on  all  who  heard  of  it. 
All  saw  in  it  the  mighty  hand  of  God,  who  alone  could 
bring  the  dead  to  life.  The  Evangelist  mentions  (Luke 
vii.  16)  that  "  there  came  a  fear  on  all,  and  they  glorified 
God,  saying,  That  a  great  prophet  is  risen  up  among  us." 
No  such  miracle  had  been  wrought  since  the  days  of  Elisha ; 
the  fame  of  it  "  went  forth  through  all  Judea,  and  through- 
out all  the  region  round  about,"  and  thus  coming  to  the 
ears  of  some  of  John's  disciples,  was  told  by  them  to  their 
master.  Luke  says,  (vii.  18,)  "And  the  disciples  of  John 
showed  him  of  all  these  things."  This  may  mean  that  they 
told  him  of  all  that  Jesus  had  recently  done,  His  works  of 

»  Stanley,  349.  *  Winer,  ii  16,  note  I 


MESSAGE  OP  THE   BAPTIST  TO  JESUS.  257 

healing,  the  choice  of  the  Twelve,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
as  well  as  of  this  work  at  Nain ;  and  also  of  His  great  popu- 
larity, and  of  the  crowds  that  continually  followed  Him. 
If  we  assume  that  the  place  of  John's  imprisonment  was 
Machaerus,1  a  fortress  in  the  southern  part  of  Perea,  just  on 
the  confines  of  Arabia,  some  days  at  least  must  have  elapsed 
between  this  miracle  and  the  coming  of  John's  messengers.2 
Perhaps  our  Lord  continued  during  this  interval  at  Nain, 
teaching  all  who  had  been  so  impressed  by  His  mighty 
work  that  they  had  ears  to  hear ;  or  He  may  have  visited 
the  adjacent  cities  and  villages ;  or  He  may,  after  a  brief 
circuit,  have  returned  to  Capernaum,  and  hither,  as  the 
place  of  His  residence,  John's  disciples  have  come. 

Some  place  this  miracle  after  the  raising  of  the  daughter 
of  Jairus,  chiefly  because  the  former  is  a  greater  exhibition 
of  the  powers  of  Christ.  Thus  Trench8  says  of  the  three 
miracles  of  raising  the  dead,  that  "  they  are  not  exactly  the 
same  miracle  repeated  three  times  over,  but  may  be  con- 
templated as  an  ever-ascending  scale  of  difficulty,  each  a 
greater  outcoming  of  the  power  of  Christ  than  the  preced- 
ing." But  this  is  more  plausible  than  sound.  If  there  be  such 
"  an  ever-ascending  scale  of  difficulty,"  we  should  find  the 
Lord's  first  works  of  healing  less  mighty  than  the  later ; 
but  this  is  not  the  case.  If  we  compare  the  two  miracles 
of  feeding  the  multitude,  the  first  is  the  more  stupendous. 
The  impression  which  the  raising  of  the  widow's  son  made 
on  all,  seems  plainly  to  show  that  it  was  the  first  of  its 
kind,  (Luke  vii.  16,  17.) 

Perhaps  the  message  of  the  Baptist  may  stand  in  close 
connection  with  the  great  miracle  at  Nain.  Such  a  work 
must  have  convinced  him,  had  he  before  had  any  dOubts, 
that  Jesus  was  divinely  sent,  and  that  the  mighty  power  of 
God  was  indeed  with  Him.    The  question  then,  "  Art  thou 

*  Joeephua,  War,  7.  6. 1^3.  *  See  Greswell,  ii.  827.  '  Mir.  152. 


258  THE  LIFE   OP   OUB  LOED. 

He  that  should  come,  or  look  we  for  another  ?  "  may  be  an 
intimation  that  Jesus  should  now  put  forth  in  direct  act 
that  resistless  power  of  which  He  had  just  shown  Himself 
to  be  possessed.  Art  thou  the  Messiah  ?  Act  then  as  the 
Messiah.  Thou  canst  raise  the  dead.  Thou  canst  fulfil  all 
the  covenant  promises  to  the  patriarchs  and  prophets. 
Purge  thy  floor ;  gather  the  wheat  into  thy  garner ;  and 
baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  answer  of  the  Lord  to  the  messengers  meets  this 
state  of  mind.  He  refers  to  His  daily  works  as  being  truly 
Messianic,  and  such  as  befitted  Him  to  perform.  Not  acts 
of  judgment,  but  of  mercy,  belonged  to  His  office.  His 
work  was  now  to  heal  the  sick,  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the 
poor,  to  raise  the  dead.  He  adds,  as  a  caution  to  John, 
"  Blessed  is  he  whosoever  shall  not  be  offended  in  me." 
Blessed  is  he  who  shall  understand  the  work  I  now  do,  and 
not  stumble  at  it. 

This  question  of  John  gives  Jesus  an  opportunity  to 
bear  His  direct  witness  to  him  as  a  prophet,  and  more, 
as  the  herald  of  the  Messiah,  (Matt.  xi.  9,  10.)  He  de- 
clares also  to  the  people,  that  if  they  will  receive  him,  he  is 
the  Elias  that  was  for  to  come ;  and  reproaches  them  that 
they  would  not  receive  John  or  Himself  in  either  of  their 
different  modes  of  working  or  teaching,  (Matt.  xi.  16-19; 
Luke  vii.  31-35.)  His  testimony  to  John  was  well  received 
by  the  people  and  the  publicans,  all  those  who  had  been 
baptized  by  him ;  but  not  by  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers, 
who  had  rejected  his  baptism,  (Luke  vii.  29,  30.) 

This  testimony  of  Jesus  to  John  as  the  herald  of  the 
Messiah,  was  a  plain  assertion,  though  an  indirect  one,  of 
His  own  Messianic  character.  But  John  was  now  in  prison. 
How  was  this  compatible  with  his  being  Elias  ?  How  could 
he  prepare  the  Lord's  way  ?  Did  not  this  very  fact  of  his 
imprisonment  conclusively  disprove  all  his  claims  to  be  the 
forerunner  of  the  Messiah  ?     This  tacit  objection  Jesus 


XNOrNTING  AT  THE   HOUSE  OF   SIMON.  259 

meets  by  showing  that  it  depended  on  them,  whether  or 
no,  he  was  the  Elias.  If  they  received  him,  if  they  heark- 
ened to  his  words,  and  permitted  him  to  do  his  work,  then 
he  would  be  to  them  that  prophet,  and  fulfil  all  that  was  said 
of  Elias.  But  they  had  not  so  received  him  ;  they  had  said 
of  him  that  he  had  a  devil ;  and  now  he  was  shut  up  in 
prison ;  and  thus  the  Jews  were  made  clearly  to  understand 
the  connection  between  John's  ministry  and  that  of  Jesus, 
and  how  the  rejection  of  the  former  involved  that  of  the 
latter. 

Immediately  upon  these  words  concerning  John,  follows 
in  Matthew  (xi.  20-24)  an  address  to  the  cities  Bethsaida, 
Chorazin,  and  Capernaum.  It  is  given  by  Luke  later,  and 
in  connection  with  the  mission  of  the  seventy  disciples, 
(Luke  x.  13-16.)  We  shall  discuss  its  right  position  when 
we  consider  that  mission. 


Autumn,  781.    a.  d.  28. 

with  a  Pharisee  named  Simon,  and  while    Luke  vii.  86-50. 
at  the  table  is  anointed  by  a  woman  who  is  a  sinner. 
In  reply  to  Simon's  complaint  He  relates  the  parable  of 
the  two  debtors.     He  continues  His  circuit  in  Galilee    Luki  viii.  1-8. 
with  the  Twelve,  and  also  accompanied  by  certain  women. 

This  dining  with  a  Pharisee,  and  anointing,  are  men* 
tioned  only  by  Luke,  (vii.  36-50,)  and  are  not  to  be  con- 
founded with  later  events  of  a  like  kind  mentioned  by  Mat- 
thew xxvi.  6-13,  Mark  xiv.  3-9,  John  xii.  2-9.  The  fact 
that  both  persons  at  whose  houses  these  feasts  took  place 
bore  the  name  of  Simon,  is  not  strange,  when  we  remember 
how  very  common  this  name  was.  They  are  sufficiently 
distinguished  by  the  addition  in  Luke  of  "  Pharisee,"  and 
in  the  other  Evangelists  of  "  leper."  Where  this  Simon 
lived  is  uncertain.   Some  have  supposed  at  Nain,  as  the  city 


260  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

last  named,1  others  at  Capernaum.'  Those  who  make  this 
Simon  the  same  as  Simon  the  leper,  place  the  feast  at  Beth- 
any; Romish  tradition,  which  holds  the  woman  to  have 
been  Mary  Magdalene,  gives  the  place  as  Magdala,  where 
Jesus  was  on  His  return  toward  Capernaum.3 

The  identification  of  this  woman,  who  was  a  sinner,  with 
Mary  Magdalene  (Luke  viii.  2)  rests  upon  no  sufficient 
grounds.  Lardner  argues4  that  Mary  was  a  woman  of 
quality  on  the  ground  that  she  is  twice  mentioned  before 
Joanna,  (Luke  viii.  3  and  xxiv.  10,)  who  was  wife  of  Her- 
od's steward.  So  the  first  place  is  often  given  her  by  the 
Evangelists,  (Matt,  xxvii.  56  and  61 ;  xxviii.  1 ;  Mark  xv. 
40  and  47 ;  but  see  John  xix.  25.)  This  was  noticed  by 
Grotius,  who  inferred  from  it  that  she  was  of  higher  rank 
than  the  other  women.  She  seems  also  to  have  been  at 
the  expense  of  the  spices  for  the  Lord's  burial.  The 
mention  of  her  name  with  those  of  the  other  honorable 
women  who  attended  the  Lord  in  His  journeys,  and  min- 
istered to  Him  of  their  substance,  is  inconsistent  with 
the  fact  of  a  previous  loose  life ;  for  such  an  one  the 
Lord  would  not  have  permitted  to  be  an  attendant,  or  the 
other  women  have  consented  to  it.  Lardner  adds:  "I 
conceive  of  her  as  a  woman  of  fine  understanding  and 
known  virtue  and  discretion,  with  a  dignity  of  behavior 
becoming  her  age,  her  wisdom,  and  her  high  station."  It 
is  generally  admitted  that  this  woman,  described  as  a 
sinner,  was  of  unchaste  life.  The  text,  as  given  by  Tisch* 
endorf  and  Alford,  changes  somewhat  the  meaning:  "a 
woman  which  was  in  the  city,  a  sinner."  Alford  remarks : 
"  We  must  either  render  '  which  was  a  sinner  in  the  city,' 

1  Greswell,  Wieseler.  *  Robinson,  Meyer. 

•  Friedlieb,  216,  note,  who  supposes  that  the  place  of  John's  imprison- 
ment was  in  the  neighborhood  of  Magdala. 

*  See  Lardner's  letter  to  Hanway  on  Magdalen  Houses,  vol.  x.  237 ;  also 
Townsend,  part  iii.,  note  58. 


THE  WOMEN    WITH   JESUS.  261 

i.  e.,  known  as  such  in  the  place  by  public  repute,  carrying 
on  a  sinful  occupation  in  the  place  ;  or  regard  it  as  paren- 
thetic, *  which  was  in  the  city  a  sinner.'  The  latter  seems 
preferable."  Lightfoot  (in  loco)  maintains  that  this  woman 
was  Mary  Magdalene,  who  was  the  same  as  Mary  sister  of 
Lazarus.  He  therefore  identifies  Magdala  with  Bethany, 
as  very  near  to  Jerusalem,  and  affirms  that  it  was  distin- 
guished for  the  unchastity  of  the  inhabitants.  Thus  Mary 
Magdalene  twice  anointed  the  Lord,  now  and  at  the  be- 
ginning of  His  Passion.1    This  is  without  proof. 

Whether  the  journey  (Luke  viii.  1-3)  made  in  company 
with  "  the  Twelve  and  certain  women,"  was  a  continuation 
of  the  circuit  from  Nam  is  not  certain,  though  most  prob- 
able. If,  however,  the  anointing  was  at  Capernaum,  this 
may  refer  to  a  new  circuit.  The  remark  of  Ellicott  (184) 
that  "  this  circuit  could  not  have  lasted  much  above  a  day 
or  two  after  the  miracle  at  Nain,"  is  plainly  at  variance 
with  the  Evangelist's  language,  (viii.  1,)  that  "  He  went 
throughout  every  city  and  village  preaching,"  which  upon 
its  face  implies  a  circuit  of  considerable  duration.'  This 
circuit  is  distinguished  from  His  former  ones  by  the  attend- 
ance of  these  women,  whose  names  are  mentioned :  Mary 
Magdalene,  Joanna,  wife  of  Chuza  Herod's  steward,  and 
Susannah,  and  many  others.  Nothing  is  historically  known 
of  any  of  these  persons  more  than  is  here  related.  Their 
attendance  on  the  Lord  may  perhaps  be  regarded  as 
marking  an  onward  step  in  His  ministry.  Whether  from  this 
time  they  generally  accompanied  Him  in  His  journeys  is 
not  stated,  but  is  not  improbable.     (See  Luke  xxiii.  55.) 

>  In  favor  of  the  identity  of  Mary  Magdalene  with  this  sinner,  see  Baro- 
nius ;  Sepp,  iii.  248  ;  Oosterzee  in  loco ;  contra,  Meyer,  Winer.  For  a  gen- 
eral discussion  of  the  point,  see  Herzog's  Encyc,  vol.  ix.  102. 

»  It  is  impossible,  without  great  violence  to  language,  to  compress  so 
much  of  the  Lord's  work  into  the  brief  interval  between  Purim  and  the  Pass- 
over following,  as  Ellicott  is  compelled  to  do  by  assuming  that  the  feast 
(John  v.  1)  U  Purim. 


262  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB  LOBD. 


Autumn,  781.     a.  d.  28. 

Returning  to  Capernaum,  the  Lord  heals  one  pos-    Matt.  xii.  22-45. 
sessed  with  a  devil,  blind  and  dumb.     The  Pharisees    Mark  iii.  22-30. 
hereupon  charge  Him  with  casting  out  devils  by  the  help 
of  Beelzebub,  and  some,  tempting  Him,  ask  a  sign 
from  heaven.     He  replies  to  their  charge,  and  while 
speaking  it  is  announced  to  Him  that  His  mother  and    Matt.  xii.  46-50. 
brethren  stand  without,  desiring  to  see  Him.    He  points    Luke  viii.  19-21. 
to  His  disciples,  and  says,  Behold  my  mother  and  my    Mark  iii  31-35. 
brethren. 

There  is  not  a  little  difficulty  in  the  arrangement  of 
these  events.  We  have  first  to  inquire  whether  the  heal- 
ing in  Matt.  xii.  22  is  identical  with  that  in  Luke  xi.  14  ? ■ 
There  are  two  cases  of  healing  of  dumb  possessed  persons 
related  by  Matthew .  first  in  ix.  32,  second  in  xii.  22.  These 
have  much  in  common,  and  at  both  did  the  Pharisees  make 
the  charge  that  Jesus  cast  out  devils  through  the  prince  of 
the  devils.  There  is,  however,  this  important  difference, 
that  in  the  former  the  possessed  was  dumb  only,  in  the  lat- 
ter, both  dumb  and  blind.  In  the  healing  related  by  St. 
Luke  the  possessed  was  dumb.  Some,  as  Greswell,  find 
here  three  distinct  cases  of  healing  ;  others  identify  that  in 
Luke  with  that  in  Matt.  ix.  32;*  but  most  with  that  in 
Matt.  xii.  22.  The  chief  ground  for  this  identity  is  the 
great  similarity  of  the  Lord's  reply,  as  given  by  the  two 
Evangelists  to  the  charge  that  He  cast  out  devils  by  Beel- 
zebub. (Compare  Matt.  xii.  25-45  with  Luke  xi.  17-36.) 
Against  this  identity  is  the  position  in  which  it  is  placed  by 
Luke,  as  if  occurring  during  the  Lord's  last  journey  to 
Jerusalem.  Matthew  also  calls  the  possessed  "  blind  and 
dumb  ; "  Luke  only  "  dumb."     But  this  difference  is  un- 

1  So  many,  Robinson,  Meyer,  Lange,  Bloomfield. 
Krafft,  Neander. 


HEALING  THE   BLIND   AND   DUMB  POSSESSED.  263 

important.  All  depends  npon  the  point  whether  Christ's 
reply  to  the  Pharisees  is  identical  in  the  two  Evangelists. 
In  favor  of  this  is  the  general  similarity  in  thought  and  ex- 
pression, making  it  improbable  that  we  have  the  reports 
of  two  distinct  discourses.  On  the  other  hand,  Luke  brings 
it  into  immediate  connection  with  a  dinner  at  the  house  of 
a  Pharisee,  (v.  37,)  which  seems  upon  internal  grounds  to 
have  been  at  a  later  period  '  Some,  however,  do  not  think 
this  dinner  with  the  Pharisee  to  have  followed  immediately 
upon  the  preceding  discourse,  and  render  the  phrase  "And 
as  He  spake,"  cv  6«  to>  XaA^o-ai,  as  meaning  simply,  "  at 
some  time  when  He  was  teaching,"  and  thus  find  in  it  no 
chronological  sequence.*  This  is  hardly  satisfactory.  Shall 
we  then  say  that  all  that  Luke  relates  (vs.  14-54)  is  in 
chronological  order?  It  is  not  impossible  that  all  from 
v.  29  may  be  referred  to  a  later  period,  as  he  seems  to 
bring  together,  (vs.  15,  16,)  the  charges  of  the  Pharisees, 
which  Matthew  keeps  distinct.  Kraffl  (85)  attempts  to 
show  that  the  discourse  given  by  Matthew  (xii.  25-45)  was 
not  all  spoken  at  once,  nor  has  reference  to  the  same  mir- 
acle. In  chapter  ix.  32-34  mention  is  made  of  the  healing 
of  a  dumb  possessed  man,  when  a  like  charge  was  made  by 
the  Pharisees  that  He  cast  out  devils  through  the  prince 
of  the  devils.  It  is  in  connection  with  this  miracle  that 
Kraffl  would  place  what  Matthew  narrates  in  xii.  38-46. 
But  this  division  seems  arbitrary.  It  is  by  no  means  im- 
possible that  this  healing  of  the  dumb  possessed  man  in 
Luke  is  to  be  identified  with  the  healing  in  Matt.  ix.  32.' 
It  is  however  very  difficult  to  reach  any  satisfactory  con- 
clusion. 


1  See  His  words  to  the  Pharisees  present  at  the  dinner,  ts.  89-54,  which 
indicate  that  the  breach  between  Him  and  them  was  irreparable. 

»  Norton,  notes,  268. 

»  So  Teschendorf,  who  makes  Luke  xi.  17-26  =  Matt.  xii.  43-45 ;  Luke  xi 
89-86  =  Matt.  xii.  38-42. 


264  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

According  to  many  harmonists,  the  two  Evangelists 
refer  to  two  distinct  cases  of  healing,  and  give  two  distinct 
discourses.1  It  is  remarked  by  Greswell  that  cures  of  dis- 
possession were  among  the  earliest  and  commonest  of  the 
Saviour's  miracles,  and  that  Matthew  himself  gives  two 
alike  in  almost  every  feature,  and  in  both  the  same  charge 
of  being  aided  by  the  prince  of  the  devils,  was  brought 
against  Him.  It  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  thought  strange 
that  His  reply  upon  different  occasions  should  be  substan- 
tially the  same.  There  is  much  force  in  this,  and  notwith- 
standing the  strong  objection  that  two  distinct  discourses 
should  have  so  much  in  common,  we  shall,  in  the  absence 
of  all  definite  data,  assume  that  Matthew  and  Luke  refer  to 
different  cases  of  healing,  and  give  different  discourses. 

That  the  healing  of  the  dumb  and  blind  possessed  man 
took  place  at  Capernaum,  may  be  inferred  from  the  men- 
tion  of "  the  scribes  which  came  down  from  Jerusalem," 
(Mark  iii.  22,)  and  who  would  naturally  seek  Him  in  the 
place  of  His  residence.  Their  presence  at  this  time  may 
be  ascribed  to  the  powerful  impression  which  the  raising 
of  the  widow's  son  at  Nain  had  made  upon  all  who  heard 
of  it,  and  the  consequent  necessity  on  the  part  of  His  ene- 
mies of  taking  some  steps  to  counteract  it.  The  cure  of 
the  possessed,  it  is  said,  amazed  the  people,  and  led  them 
to  ask,  "  Is  not  this  the  Son  of  David  ? "  So  far  as  we 
know,  this  was  the  first  time  that  this  specially  Messianic 
title  had  been  given  Him ;  nor  does  it  clearly  appear  what 
there  was  in  this  miracle  that  should  lead  them  thus  to 
speak.  It  would,  however,  naturally  arouse  the  jealousy 
of  the  Pharisees,  and  make  them  the  more  eager  to  oppose 
Him.  As  the  fact  of  the  healing  was  beyond  dispute,  they 
could  only  assert  that  it  was  done  through  the  aid  of  the 
prince  of  the  devils.  This  ascription  of  His  miracles  to 
Satanic  agency  marks  a  decided  progress  in  Pharisaic  hos- 

*  McKoight,  GreswalL 


VISIT  OF  JESUS'   MOTHER  AND   BRETHREN.  265 

tility.  Heretofore  they  had  said  of  Him  that  He  was  a 
Sabbath-breaker  and  a  blasphemer ;  now  they  say  that  He 
is  in  league  with  evil  spirits.  And  this  charge  reached 
much  farther  than  this  particular  miracle.  It  was  virtually 
ascribing  all  that  He  said  and  did  to  a  diabolical  origin, 
and  made  the  Spirit  of  God  that  rested  upon  Him  to  be 
the  spirit  of  Beelzebub ;  and  hence  the  severity  of  His  lan- 
guage in  reply,  (Matt.  xii.  34.) 

It  appears  from  Mark  (iii.  22)  that  those  who  made  this 
charge  were  the  scribes  which  came  down  from  Jerusalem. 
Luke  (xi.  15)  uses  the  indefinite  expression,  "some  of  them 
said."  Matthew  (xii.  24)  refers  it  to  the  Pharisees.  These 
scribes  were  doubtless  themselves  Pharisees,  perhaps  also 
priests,  or  Levites.  Alexander  well  remarks :  "  It  is  a  serious 
error  to  suppose  that  these  descriptive  titles  are  exclusive  of 
each  other,  and  denote  so  many  independent  classes,  whereas 
they  only  denote  different  characters  or  relations,  which 
might  all  meet  in  one  and  the  same  person,  as  being  at  the 
same  time  a  priest  and  Levite  by  descent  and  sacred  office, 
a  scribe  by  profession,  and  a  Pharisee  in  sentiment  and 
party  connection."  It  is  not  improbable  that  they  came 
as  a  formal  deputation  to  watch  His  proceedings,  and  to 
organize  His  enemies  against  Him  throughout  Galilee. 
Doubtless  their  calumny  that  He  was  aided  by  Beelzebub, 
was  caught  up  and  reiterated  by  the  Pharisees  of  Ca- 
pernaum. 

The  visit  of  His  mother  and  brethren  is  mentioned  by 
all  the  Synoptists ;  and  that  it  occurred  during,  or  imme- 
diately after,  the  reply  to  the  Pharisees,  appears  from 
Matt.  xii.  46.  Luke  (viiL  19)  has  it  in  another  connection, 
but  without  any  note  of  time.  It  is,  perhaps,  fairly  infer- 
rible that  they  now  resided  at  Capernaum.1  It  is  evident 
that  Mary  and  His  brethren  were  presuming  too  much  on 

>  Greswell,  ii.  270,  admitting  this,  still  affirms  that  "  they  had  no  house  of 
their  own,  or  none  in  which  our  Lord  was  living  along  with  them." 
12 


266  THE  LIFE  OP  OUB  LORD. 

their  near  relationship  to  Him,  and  that  He  wished  to  teach 
them  that  when  engaged  in  His  Father's  work,  merely  hu- 
man bonds  must  give  place  to  higher  obligations.  Mary 
here  showed  the  same  spirit  that  twice  before  He  had  re- 
buked, (Luke  ii.  49 ;  John  ii.  4.) 


Autumn,  781.     a.  d.  28. 

The  same  day  He  left  His  house  and  sat  by  the  sea-  Matt.  xiii.  1-52. 

side,  and  as  the  multitudes  gathered  to  Him,  He  entered  Mark  iv.  1-34. 

a  ship  and  taught  them  in  parables.   At  the  close  of  the  Luke  viii.  4-15. 

day  He  gives  commandment  to  depart  to  the  other  side.  Matt.  viii.  18-27. 

As  they  were  preparing  to  go,  He  holds  a  conversation  Luke  ix.  57-60. 

with  a  scribe,  and  with  one  of  His  disciples  about  fol-  Mark  iv.  85-41. 

lowing  Him.     He  enters  the  ship  with  the  disciples,  and  Luke  viii.  22-25. 
crosses  the  sea.    Upon  the  way  a  violent  tempest  arises ; 
Jesus  rebukes  the  wind  and  waves,  and  there  is  a 
great  calm. 

There  is  no  reason  why  the  language  of  Matthew  "  in 
the  same  day,"  ev  rjfxtpa  ciccinj — should  not  here  be  taken 
strictly,  although  sometimes  used  indefinitely,  (Acts  viii.  1.) 
It  was  the  same  day  as  that  on  which  His  mother  and 
brethren  visited  Him,  and  on  which  He  healed  the  blind 
and  dumb  possessed.  Mark  (iv.  1)  has  the  same  order. 
Luke  (viii.  4-19)  narrates  the  teaching  in  parables  before 
His  mother's  visit.  The  similarity  of  statement  is  so  marked 
in  Matt.  viii.  19-22,  and  Luke  ix.  57-60,  that  we  can 
scarce  doubt  that  they  are  describing  the  same  incidents. 
Their  repetition  is  indeed  possible,  as  affirmed  by  Stier,  but 
improbable.  They  seem  most  fittingly  arranged  in  the  or- 
der in  which  they  are  placed  by  Matthew. 

It  is  a  question  whether  all  the  parables  given  by  Mat- 
thew (xiii.)  were  spoken  at  once ;  and  if  not,  when  and  where? 
Mark,  although  he  gives  only  those  of  the  Sower  and  the 
mustard  seed,  implies  that  there  were  others,  (iv.  2,)  "And 


FIEST  TEACHING  IN  PARABLES.  267 

He  taught  them  many  things  by  parables ; "  language  almost 
the  same  as  that  of  Matthew,  (xiii.  3,)  "And  He  spake 
many  things  unto  them  in  parables."     After  He  had  spoken 
the  parable  of  the  Sower,  it  is  said  (Matt.  xiii.  10)  that  His  * 
disciples   came  to  ask  Him  why  He   spake  in  parables. 
Mark  (iv.  10)  says :  "  When  He  was  alone,"  they  asked  of 
Him  the  parable.     Whether  He  was  yet  in  the  ship,  or  had 
gone  to  the  shore,  does  not  appear.    Greswell  attempts  to 
show  that  the  disciples  did  not  ask  any  explanation  of  the 
parable  of  the  Sower  at  this  time,  but  only  why  He  spake 
in  parables  at  all.     Afterward,  when  He  had  gone  into  the 
house,  (Matt.  xiii.  36,)  they  asked  Him  the  meaning  of  this 
particular  parable,  and  also  of  the  tares.    This  involves 
more  difficulties  than  it  removes.     Krafft  makes  the  teach- 
ing in  parables  to  have  occupied  at  least  two  days.     (See 
Luke  viii.  22,  who  makes  a  distinction  between  the  day  of  the 
visit  of  His  mother  and  brethren,  and  that  when  He  spake 
the  parable  of  the  Sower.)    In  this  case,  Mark  (iv.  35)  refers 
not  to  the  day  when  He  went  down  to  the  sea-side,  but  to 
the  day  following.    Stier  supposes  the  seven  parables  of 
Matthew  to  have  been  spoken  on  one  day ;  the  first  four 
to  the  people  on  the  shore,  the  last  three  to  the  disciples 
in  the  house.    After  several  parables  had   been  spoken, 
there  was  a  pause,  (Mark  iv.  10 ;  Matt.  xiii.  10,)  and  then 
the  questions  following  were  asked. 

It  must  remain  doubtful  whether  this  teaching  in  par- 
ables did  not  occupy  more  than  one  day.  If,  however,  we 
limit  it  to  one,  we  may  give  the  following  order  of 
events  as  a  probable  one.  After  Jesus  had  spoken  the 
parable  of  the  Sower,  He  paused  for  a  while,  perhaps  to 
give  His  hearers  time  to  reflect  upon  it.  During  this  in- 
terval, the  Twelve  and  other  disciples  asked  Him,  first,  why 
He  taught  in  parables,  and  second,  what  this  parable  was? 
Where  these  questions  were  asked,  is  uncertain.  Two  cir- 
cumstances only  define  it :  that  "  He  was  alone,"  (Mark  iv. 


268  THE  LIFE   OP   OUB  LORD. 

10,)  or  separated  from  the  multitude  ;  and  that  M  the  disci- 
ples came  to  Him,"  (Matt.  xiii.  10.)  All  this  may  have  taken 
place  while  He  was  still  in  the  boat,  in  which  with  Him  were 
doubtless  the  Twelve,  and  others  may  have  joined  them. 
By  withdrawing  a  little  way  from  the  shore,  they  would  be 
strictly  alone.  Greswell  (ii.  440)  objects  that  the  multitude 
could  not  be  called  "  those  that  are  without,"  (Mark  iv.  11,) 
unless  Jesus  and  the  disciples  were  somewhere  within,  that 
is,  in  a  house  ;  but  the  distinction  is  more  subtle  than  solid. 
After  His  explanations  to  the  disciples,  Jesus  again  teaches 
the  people,  and  adds  the  parables  of  the  tares  and  wheat, 
the  mustard  seed,  and  the  leaven.  At  this  point,  dismiss- 
ing the  multitude,  He  returns  to  His  house,  and  His  dis- 
ciples coming  to  Him,  He  expounds  to  them  the  tares  and 
wheat,  and  adds  the  parables  of  the  hid  treasure,  the  pearl, 
and  the  net.  Going  again  at  even  to  the  shore,  and  the 
multitudes  gathering  around  Him,  He  gives  order  to  pass 
to  the  other  side.  The  disciples,  therefore,  send  away  the 
people,  and  take  Him  as  He  was  in  the  ship.1 

This  teaching  in  parables  plainly  marks  an  onward  step 
in  the  Lord's  ministry.  He  had  now  testified  of  Himself 
both  in  word  and  deed,  had  manifested  Himself  as  the  Mes- 
siah ;  and  it  was  becoming  apparent  to  Him  that  the  great 
body  of  the  people  had  no  discernment  of  His  divine  char- 
acter and  mission,  and  would  not  receive  Him,  however  they 
might  for  a  time  be  personally  attracted  to  Him,  and  marvel 
at  His  words  and  works.  The  Pharisees,  the  spiritual 
leaders  both  at  Jerusalem  and  in  Galilee,  had  taken  decided 
steps  against  Him ;  and  though  with  the  common  people 
His  popularity  seemed  now  at  its  height,  He  discerned  that 
there  was  no  root  of  faith,  and  that  most  followed  Him 
through  motives  of  wonder,  or  idle  curiosity.  He  could, 
therefore,  well  speak  of  them  (Matt.  xiii.  13-15)  as  hearing 

1  See  Ncwcome,  Har.  256. 


JESUS   CROSSES  THE  SEA   OP  GALILEE.  269 

His  words,  and  yet  not  understanding  them,  as  seeing  His 
works  and  not  perceiving  their  significance.  To  them  He 
could  not  explain  the  mysteries  of  the  Kingdom.  He  must 
use  the  form  of  the  parable  which,  hiding  its  meaning  from 
the  careless  and  foolish,  opened  it  to  the  diligent  and  wise 
sucker  after  truth. 

The  motive  of  the  Lord  in  crossing  the  lake  is  not  stated, 
but  apparently  it  was  to  escape  the  crowds  never  satisfied 
with  hearing  Him,  and  to  find  rest,  (Matt.  viii.  18.)  His 
disciples  "  took  Him  as  He  was  in  the  ship,"  or  without 
any  preparation  for  the  journey ;  which  implies  that  it  was 
not  premeditated,  but  suddenly  determined  on,  (Mark  iv. 
36.)  It  was  "  even,"  probably  near  sundown,  when  they 
left  the  shore,  and  wearied  by  the  labors  of  the  day  the 
Lord  soon  fell  asleep.  Whilst  thus  sleeping  a  fierce  storm 
burst  upon  them.  How  exposed  is  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  from 
its  peculiar  position,  to  these  storms,  all  travellers  have  re- 
marked, but  few  have  had  any  personal  experience  of  their 
fury.  Thomson,  (ii.  32,)  however,  was  for  several  days  upon 
its  shores  during  one  of  them,  the  charaoter  of  which  he 
thus  describes :  "  To  understand  the  causes  of  these  sudden 
and  violent  tempests  we  must  remember  that  the  lake  lies 
low,  six  hundred  feet  lower  than  the  ocean ;  that  the  vast 
and  naked  plateaus  of  the  Janlan  rise  to  a  great  height, 
spreading  backward  to  the  wilds  of  the  Hauran,  and  up- 
ward to  snowy  Hermon ;  that  the  water-courses  have  cut 
out  profound  ravines,  and  wild  gorges  converging  to  the 
head  of  the  lake,  and  that  these  act  like  gigantic  funnels  to 
draw  down  the  cold  winds  from  the  mountains.  And 
moreover,  these  winds  are  not  only  violent,  but  they  come 
down  suddenly,  and  often  when  the  sky  is  perfectly  clear. 
I  once  went  in  to  swim  near  the  hot  baths,  and  before  I 
was  aware  a  wind  came  rushing  over  the  cliffs  with  such 
force  that  it  was  with  great  difficulty  I  could  regain  the 
shore."     Of  another  storm,  when  on  the  eastern  side,  he 


270  THE   LITE   OP   OUB  LORD. 

says :  "  The  sun  had  scarcely  set  when  the  wind  began  to 
rush  down  toward  the  lake,  and  it  continued  all  night  long 
with  constantly  increasing  violence,  so  that  when  we  reached 
the  shore  next  morning,  the  face  of  the  lake  was  like  a  huge 
boiling  caldron." — "  We  had  to  double-pin  all  the  tent  ropes, 
and  frequently  were  obliged  to  hang  with  our  whole  weight 
upon  them  to  keep  the  quivering  tabernacle  from  being 
carried  off  bodily  into  the  air." 

The  attempts  to  determine  at  what  season  of  the  year 
the  parables  were  spoken,  through  the  natural  analogies 
upon  which  they  are  based,  as  Newton  inferred  that  it  was 
seed-time,  or  about  November,  because  of  the  reference  to 
the  sowing  of  seed,  lead  to  no  substantial  result.  So  also 
the  storm  does  not,  as  said  by  Newton,  define  the  time  as 
winter;  or  as  an  equinoctial  quarter  of  the  year,  as  said  by 
Greswell.  That  it  was  during  the  late  autumn  or  early 
winter  is  upon  other  grounds  probable. 


Autumn,  781.     a.  d.  28. 

After  the  stilling  of  the  tempest  He  comes  to  the    Matt.  viii.  28-84, 
country  of  the  Gergesenes.   As  He  landed  He  was  met    Mark  v.  1-18. 
by  two  men  possessed  by  demons,  whose  dwelling  was    Lukk  viii.  26-39. 
in  the  tombs  near  by.    Beholding  Jesus  they  run  to 
meet  Him,  and  He  casting  out  the  demons  permits 
them  to  enter  a  herd  of  swine  that  was  feeding  near. 
The  swine  so  possessed  run  down  the  hill-side  into  the 
sea,  and  so  perish,  and  the  inhabitants  coming  to  Him 
desire  Him  to  depart  from  their  coasts.     After  direct- 
ing the  healed  demoniacs  to  proclaim  through  Decap-    Mark  v.  19,  20. 
olis  what  had  been  done  for  them,  He  returns  to  Ca-    Matt.  ix.  1. 
pernaum. 

As  the  Lord  left  the  shore  at  even,  and  afterward  fell 
asleep,  we  may  infer  that  the  storm  came  on  in  the  night. 
The  landing  at  Gergesa  on  the  eastern  side  must  then  have 


THE  DEMONIACS  AT  GEBGESA.  271 

been  the  next  morning,  as  there  is  no  mention  that  He  re- 
turned that  night  to  Capernaum,  or  landed  elsewhere.  He 
was  met  by  the  demoniacs  so  soon  as  He  came  out  of  the 
ship ;  and  that  it  was  broad  daylight  appears  from  the  fact 
that  He  was  seen  by  them  afar  off,  (Mark  v.  2-6.) ■ 

The  exact  spot  where  Jesus  met  the  demoniacs  is  un- 
certain. The  first  point  of  difficulty  is  to  harmonize  the 
various  readings  of  the  Synoptists.  Without  entering  into 
a  discussion  upon  this  point,  which  could  lead  to  no  definite 
result,  we  find  mentioned  three  distinct  places,  Gadara, 
Gerasa,  and  Gergesa.  Of  the  two  former  we  have  some 
knowledge.  Gadara  is  mentioned  by  Josephus"  as  the 
capital  of  Perea,  and  as  destroyed  by  Vespasian.  It  is  gen- 
erally admitted  that  it  stood  upon  the  site  now  known  as 
Urn  Keis,  where  very  considerable  ruins  are  still  visible. 
Um  Keis  lies  some  six  or  eight  miles  southeast  of  the  Sea 
of  Galilee,  and  about  sixteen  miles  from  Tiberias,  and  three 
south  of  the  Jarmuk,  or  ancient  Hieromax.  Gerasa  is  also 
mentioned  by  Josephus'  as  lying  upon  the  eastern  border 
of  Perea,  and  as  captured  by  a  lieutenant  of  Vespasian. 
♦4  In  the  Roman  age  no  city  of  Palestine  was  better  known 
than  Gerasa.  It  is  situated  amid  the  mountains  of  Gilead 
twenty  miles  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  twenty-five  north  of 
Philadelphia,  the  ancient  Rabbath  Ammon."  *  Gergesa  is 
mentioned  by  Origen  as  an  ancient  city  lying  upon  the 
Lake  of  Tiberias,  and  near  the  shore,  and  he  adds  that  the 
precipice  was  still  pointed  out  from  which  the  swine  rushed 
into  the  sea.*  Alford,  however,  doubts  whether  there  ever 
was  a  town  named  Gergesa  near  the  lake ;  still,  as  he  thinks 
that  "  Gergesenes"  in  the  text  could  not,  as  a  conjecture  of 
Origen,  have  found  its  way  into  so  many  ancient  versions 

i  See  Greawell,  ii.  885.  »  War,  4.  7.  8. 

»  War,  8.  8.  8 ;  4.  9.  1.  4  Smith's  Diet.  Bible,  i.  678. 

•  Origen  quoted  in  Alford  on  Matt  viii.  28 ;  see  Reland,  b06. 


272  THE  LIFE  OP   OUE  LOED. 

and  manuscripts,  he  adopts  it  as  the  true  reading.1  He 
adds :  "  We  cannot  say  that  a  part  of  the  territory  of  Ga- 
dara  may  not  have  been  known  to  those,  who,  like  Mat- 
thew, were  locally  intimate  with  the  shores  of  the  lake,  by 
this  ancient  and  generally  disused  name." 

Kegarded  merely  as  a  question  of  topography,  Gerasa 
must  be  at  once  rejected  as  the  place  of  this  meeting  with 
the  demoniacs,  because  too  distant ;  unless  indeed  we  sup- 
pose it  to  have  been  the  name  of  a  province  so  large  as  to 
embrace  Gadara  and  all  the  region  to  the  lake.  So  also 
Gadara,  if  the  city  be  meant,  is  too  remote  to  answer  to 
the  conditions  of  the  narrative,  for  this  plainly  implies  that 
the  city  was  upon,  or  near  the  shore.  Mark  (v.  2)  says : 
"  And  when  He  was  come  out  of  the  ship  immediately  there 
met  Him  out  of  the  tombs,"  &c.  Luke  (viii.  27)  says : 
M  And  when  He  went  forth  to  land  there  met  Him  out  of 
the  city  a  certain  man,"  <fec.  These  statements  cannot  well 
be  explained  otherwise  than  that  the  demoniacs  met  Him, 
as  observed  by  Alexander,  "  as  He  landed,  not  merely  after 
He  had  done  so,  which  would  admit  of  an  indefinite  inter- 
val; whereas  the  landing  and  the  meeting  were  simulta- 
neous, or  immediately  successive."  It  is  not  indeed  said 
that  the  place  of  landing  was  close  to  the  city,  but  Jesus 
does  not  seem  to  have  left  the  spot  where  the  demoniacs 
met  Him  upon  the  shore,  and  to  which  "  the  whole  city 
came  out  to  meet"  Him ;  from  which  circumstance  it  may 
fairly  be  inferred  that  the  city  was  at  no  great  distance. 
Besides,  although  the  place  where  the  swine  were  feeding 
is  spoken  of  as  "  a  good  way  off^"  yet  it  was  obviously  near 
the  lake,  for  it  is  simply  said  that  after  their  possession  they 
ran  down  a  steep  place  into  the  sea.  Thomson  (ii.  35)  sat- 
isfactorily shows  that  this  city  could  not  be  Gadara.    "  I 

1  Bleek  (Synoptische  Erklarung  i.  865)  thinks  Origen's  words  show  that 
there  was  such  a  place  in  his  day,  the  traditional  site  of  the  miracle,  and  one 
answering  to  its  conditions. 


GAD  ABA   AND   GERGESA,  273 

take  for  granted,  what  I  believe  to  be  true,  that  Urn  Keis 
marks  the  site  of  Gadara,  and  it  was  therefore  about  three 
hours  to  the  south  of  the  extreme  shore  of  the  lake  in  that 
direction.  There  is  first  a  broad  plain  from  Khurbet  Sa- 
rura  to  the  Jarmuk ;  then  the  vast  gorge  of  this  river,  and 
after  it  an  ascent  for  an  hour  and  a  half  to  Um  Keis.  No 
one,  I  think,  will  maintain  that  this  meets  the  requirements 
of  the  sacred  narratives,  but  is  in  irreconcilable  contradic- 
tion to  them.  It  is  true  that  a  celebrated  traveller,  from 
his  lofty  stand-point  at  Um  Keis,  overlooks  all  intervening 
obstacles,  and  makes  the  swine  rush  headlong  into  the  lake 
from  beneath  his  very  feet.  But  to  do  this  in  fact,  (and 
the  Evangelists  deal  only  in  plain  facts,)  they  must  have 
run  down  the  mountain  for  an  hour  and  a  half,  forded  the 
deep  Jarmuk,  quite  as  formidable  as  the  Jordan  itself,  as- 
cended its  northern  bank,  and  raced  across  a  level  plain 
several  miles  before  they  could  reach  the  nearest  margin 
of  the  lake,  a  feat  which  no  herd  of  swine  would  be  likely 
to  achieve,  even  though  they  were  possessed." 

If  upon  these  topographic  grounds,  which  are  substan- 
tially those  of  Origen,  we  reject  the  claims  of  Gadara,  we 
turn  back  to  Gergesa.  We  have  already  referred  to  the 
testimony  of  Origen  to  Gergesa  as  an  ancient  city  near  the 
lake,  and  having  a  precipice  hard  by,  which  tradition  in  his 
day  pointed  out  as  the  place  where  the  swine  ran  down 
into  the  sea.  Eusebius  says  that  at  his  day,  a  village  was 
shown  upon  the  mountain  near  Lake  Tiberias,  where  the 
swine  ran  down.1  There  is  then  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
at  the  time  of  Origen,  and  afterward,  a  town  existed  by  the 
name  of  Gergesa  near  the  lake,  and  which  tradition  made 
the  scene  of  this  miracle ;  and  the  absence  of  all  later  men- 
tion of  it  shows  only  that  it  had  fallen  into  decay.  The  site 
of  this  city  Thomson  finds  on  the  eastern  shore  directly 

*  Raumer,  218,  note  881. 
12* 


2H  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD. 

opposite  the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  and  near  the  point  where 
Wady  es  Samak  enters  the  lake.  Here  he  found  some 
ruins,  and  the  name  as  given  him  by  the  Bedouins  was 
Kerza  or  Gersa.  "  It  was  a  small  place,  but  the  walls  can 
be  traced  all  round,  and  there  seem  to  have  been  consider- 
able suburbs.  I  identify  these  ruins  with  the  long  lost  site 
of  Gergesa." — "  In  this  Gersa  or  Chersa  we  have  a  position 
which  fulfils  every  requirement  of  the  narrative,  and  with  a 
name  so  near  that  in  Matthew  as  to  be  in  itself  a  strong 
corroboration  of  the  truth  of  this  identification.  It  is 
within  a  few  rods  of  the  shore,  and  an  immense  mountain 
rises  directly  above  it,  in  which  are  anoient  tombs,  out  of 
some  of  which  the  two  men  possessed  of  the  devils  may 
have  issued  to  meet  Jesus.  The  lake  is  so  near  the  base  of 
the  mountain,  that  the  swine  rushing  madly  down  it  could 
not  stop,  but  would  be  hurried  on  into  the  water  and 
drowned.  The  place  is  one  which  our  Lord  would  be 
likely  to  visit,  having  Capernaum  in  full  view  to  the  north, 
and  Galilee  over  against  it,  as  Luke  (viii.  26)  says  it  was. 
The  name,  however,  pronounced  by  Bedouin  Arabs  is  so 
similar  to  Gergesa,  that  to  all  my  inquiries  for  this  place 
they  invariably  said  it  was  at  Chersa,  and  they  insisted  that 
they  were  identical,  and  I  agree  with  them  in  this  opinion." 
Thomson  strengthens  this  result  by  describing  the  topogra- 
phy of  the  shore  of  the  lake  to  the  south  of  Chersa,  the 
mountains  receding  from  the  shore,  and  the  plain  between 
them  becoming  broader.  "There  is  no  bold  cliff  over- 
hanging the  lake  on  the  eastern  side,  nor  indeed  on  any 
other,  except  just  north  of  Tiberias.  Everywhere  along 
the  northeastern  and  eastern  shores  a  smooth  beach  de- 
clines gently  down  to  the  water.  There  is  no  'jumping 
off'  place,  nor,  indeed,  is  any  required.  Take  your  stand  a 
little  south  of  this  Chersa.  A  great  herd  of  swine,  we  will 
suppose,  is  feeding  on  this  mountain  that  towers  above  it. 
They  are  seized  with  a  sudden  panic,  rush  madly  down  the 


SITE  OP  GERGESA.  275 

almost  perpendicular  declivity,  those  behind  tumbling  over 
and  thrusting  forward  those  before,  and  as  there  is  neither 
time  nor  space  to  recover  on  the  narrow  shelf  between  the 
base  and  the  lake,  they  are  crowded  headlong  into  the 
water  and  perish.  All  is  perfectly  natural  just  at  this 
point,  and  here  I  suppose  it  did  actually  occur." 

This  discovery  of  the  site  of  Gergesa  removes  all  topo- 
graphical difficulties  from  the  sacred  narratives.  It  is 
therefore  unnecessary  to  mention  in  detail  the  other  solu- 
tions that  have  been  proposed,  as  that  of  Ebrard,  (324,)  who 
in  answer  to  De  Wette  attempts  to  show  that  Gadara  was 
but  an  hour  distant' from  the  sea.  Stanley  (372)  places 
the  scene  of  these  events  in  Wady  Feik,  nearly  opposite 
Tiberias, 

The  difficulties  connected  with  the  various  readings  in 
the  texts  of  the  Synoptists  belong  to  another  department 
of  criticism.  I£  however,  "  Gergesenes  "  (Matt.  viii.  28) 
was  the  reading  of  some  manuscripts  of  Matthew  before 
the  time  of  Origen,  we  may  readily  suppose  that  this 
Evangelist  mentioned  the  name  of  the  city,  although  small, 
as  one  not  unknown  to  his  Jewish  readers.  The  Evange- 
lists, Mark  and  Luke,  mention  only  the  name  of  the  larger 
and  more  important  city,  as  more  likely  to  be  known  to 
their  distant  readers,  to  whom  exact  topography  was  un- 
important.1 

We  may  then  thus  picture  this  incident  to  our- 
selves. The  Lord,  leaving  Capernaum  at  even  to  avoid 
the  ever-thronging  multitude,  directs  his  course  south- 
easterly toward  Gergesa.  The  storm  bursting  suddenly 
upon  them  during  the  evening,  He,  by  His  word,  calms  the 
sea.  Very  early  in  the  morning  He  lands  upon  the  coast 
of  Gergesa,  a  little  way  south  from  the  city.  Here  He  is 
met,  as  He  lands,  by  the  demoniacs.  Upon  the  steep  slopes 
of  the  adjacent  mountain  the  swine  were  feeding,  and  to 

»  Meyer  in  loco ;  Ebrard,  825 ;  Ewald,  Chriatus,  388 ;  Porter,  ii.  819. 


276  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

Him  npon  the  shore  came  out  the  inhabitants  of  the  city, 
beseeching  Him  to  depart  from  their  coasts. 

Matthew  mentions  two  demoniacs ;  Mark  and  Luke  but 
one.  How  shall  this  discrepancy  be  explained?  Lightfoot, 
(on  Mark  v.  1,)  who  supposes  that  Gergesa  was  the  name 
of  a  district  embracing  within  it  Gadara,  which  was  a 
heathen  city,  makes  one  of  the  two  to  have  been  a  Gadarene, 
and  the  other  a  Gergesene.  Matthew  mentions  both,  but 
Mark  and  Luke  mention  only  him  from  Gadara  as  a  hea- 
then demoniac,  "  that  so  they  might  make  the  story  more 
famous."  Some,  as  Ebrard,  make  Matthew  to  have  blend- 
ed this  case  with  that  of  the  possessed  healed  at  Caper- 
naum, (Mark  i.  23.)  Da  Costa  supposes  that  Matthew  knew 
that  there  was  in  fact  but  one,  but  that  he  might  have  seen 
a  man  attacked  by  the  demoniac,  and  so  gives  the  impres- 
sion upon  his  mind  as  if  there  were  two ! 

The  common  and  most  probable  explanation  is,  that 
there  were  indeed  two,  but  that  one  was  much  more  promi- 
nent than  the  other,  either  as  the  fiercer  of  the  two,  or  as 
of  a  higher  rank  and  better  known,  and  therefore  alone 
mentioned  by  Mark  and  Luke.1  That  their  silence  respect- 
ing one  of  the  demoniacs  does  not  exclude  him,  Robinson 
thus  illustrates:*  "  In  the  year  1824  Lafayette  visited  the 
United  States,  and  was  everywhere  welcomed  with  honors 
and  pageants.  Historians  will  describe  these  as  a  noble  in- 
cident in  his  life.  Other  writers  will  relate  the  same  visit 
as  made,  and  the  same  honors  as  enjoyed,  by  two  persons, 
viz.,  Lafayette  and  his  son.  Will  there  be  any  contradic 
tion  between  these  two  classes  of  writers  ?  Will  not  both 
record  the  truth?"  Greswell  (i.  210)  thinks  that  one  of 
those  thus  healed  became  a  disciple,  and  that  the  other  did 
not.     The  former  being  thus  better  known,  and  his  case 

1  So  early,  Augustine ;  and  recently,  Alexander,  Krafft,  Stier,  Gretwell, 
Ellicott. 

3  Har.,  195. 


JESUS  RETURNS  TO  CAPERNAUM.  277 

invested  with  a  personal  interest,  Mark  and  Luke  speak 
of  him  only,  and  in  much  detail ;  whilst  Matthew,  who  de- 
sires only  to  illustrate  the  power  of  Christ  over  evil  spirits, 
mentions  the  healing  of  both,  but  says  nothing  of  their  sub- 
sequent history.  He  prefers,  however,  the  conjecture  based 
on  Luke  viii.  27,  that  this  one  demoniac  was  an  inhabitant, 
and  probably  a  native  of  Gergesa ;  but  not  the  other. 

Meyer,  on  the  other  hand,  rejects  all  attempts  to  ex- 
plain away  the  discrepancy  ;  and  Alford,  who  supposes  that 
there  was  but  one  demoniac,  thinks  that  perhaps  his 
words,  "  My  name  is  legion,  for  we  are  many,"  (Mark  v.  9,) 
may  have  given  rise  to  the  report  of  two  demoniacs  in  Mat- 
thew. 

The  request  of  the  Gergesenes  that  Jesus  would  depart 
from  their  coasts,  shows  how  material  interests  ruled  in 
their  minds,  and  how  unprepared  were  they  to  understand 
the  real  significance  of  His  work.  The  healing  of  the  de- 
moniacs, so  mighty  a  miracle,  and  their  restoration  to  sound 
mind,  and  to  their  families  and  friends,  were  of  less  value 
than  the  loss  of  their  swine. 

The  direction  to  the  healed  to  go  to  their  homes,  and 
proclaim  what  the  Lord  had  done  for  them,  so  contrary  to 
His  general  custom,  shows  that  it  was  His  desire  to  call 
attention  to  Himself  in  this  section  of  the  land ;  and,  by 
making  this  miracle  widely  known,  prepare  the  way  for 
subsequent  labors.  Perhaps,  also,  something  in  the  moral 
condition  of  the  healed  made  this  desirable  for  them. 


Autumn,  781.    a.  d.  28. 

Immediately  upon  Hia  return  to  Capernaum  He  was  Luke  viii.  40-56. 

surrounded  by  the  multitude,  which  had  been  waiting  for  Mark  v.  21-43. 

Him.     Being  invited  by  Matthew  to  a  feast  at  his  house,  Mark  ii.  15-22. 

He  there  held  conversation  with  some  Pharisees,  and  Luke  v.  29-39. 

afterward  with  some  of  John's  disciples.     Whilst  yet  Matt.  ix.  10-17. 


278  THE  LIFE  OP  OUB  LOBD. 

speakirg  with  them,  came  Jairus,  a  ruler  of  the  gyna-    Matt.  ix.  18-26. 

gogue,  praying  for  the  healing  of  his  daughter.     As 

Jesus  was  on  His  way  to  the  house  of  Jairus,  He  heals 

a  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood.     A  messenger  meeting 

Him  announces  the  death  of  the  girl,  but  He  proceeds, 

and,  entering  the  house,  restores  her  to  life. 

We  may  put  His  arrival  at  Capernaum  about  mid- 
day.  The  crowds  that  for  several  days  had  been  following 
Him,  were  awaiting  eagerly  His  return,  and  now  gladly  re- 
ceived Him.  That  the  first  event  following  this  return  was 
not  the  healing  of  the  paralytic,  which  succeeds  in  the  order 
of  Matthew's  narrative,  (Matt.  ix.  2,)  appears  from  Mark 
(v.  21,  22)  and  Luke,  (viii.  40,  41,)  who  both  narrate  the 
healing  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus.  Besides,  we  have  seen 
that  the  healing  of  the  paralytic  is  to  be  placed  earlier, 
immediately  after  the  Lord's  return  from  His  first  circuit. 
(See  Markii.  1-12.) 

The  grounds  upon  which  the  feast  of  Levi  is  placed  im- 
mediately before  the  healing  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  are 
found  in  the  statements  of  Matthew,  (ix.  10-19.)  From 
these  we  learn  that  Jairus  came  to  Jesus  while  speaking 
to  certain  disciples  of  John :  "  While  He  spake  these  things 
unto  them,  behold,  there  came  a  certain  ruler,"  &cl  Jairus 
"  came  in,"  as  if  into  a  house.  It  is  said  also,  (v.  19,)  "  and 
Jesus  arose  and  followed  Him."  These  expressions  most 
naturally  refer  back  to  the  mention  of  the  feast,  (v.  10,) 
where  it  is  said  that  "  Jesus  sat  at  meat  in  the  house."  To 
the  house  of  Levi  came  Jairus,  and  from  it  Jesus  went 
forth  with  him.  That  the  conversation  between  Him  and 
the  Pharisees  in  regard  to  eating  with  publicans  and  sinners, 
took  place  at  the  same  time  is  probable,  though  not  cer- 
tain. The  language  of  Matthew,  "  And  when  the  Phar- 
isees saw  it  they  said,"  &c,  does  not  prove  that  they  were 

1  The  received  text  has  apxuv  **&w ;  Teschendorf  gives  ctpXoty  «M7«*A»*» 
bo  Meyer,  Alford ;  Bleek,  after  Knapp,  apx***  **'*  *M»v- 


THE  FEAST  OP  LEVI.  279 

present  as  spectators,  or  addressed  their  question  to  the 
disciples  during  the  feast.     It  may  have  been  after  the 
lapse  of  days,  or  even  weeks.     "The  very. circumstances 
related  show  that  this  remonstrance  cannot  have  taken 
place  at  the  feast.    The  Pharisees  say  the  words  to  the 
disciples,  our  Lord  hears  it.    This  denotes  an   occasion 
when  our  Lord  and  the  disciples  were  present,  but  not 
surely  intermixed  with  the  great  crowd  of  publicans."  l 
Nor  does  the  language  of  Matthew,  "  Then  came  to  Him 
the  disciples  of  John,"  determine  whether  His  conversation 
with  them  was  at  the  same  time  and  place.     Alexander, 
who  supposes  that  the  Pharisees  had  intruded  themselves 
upon  Jesus  while  at  the  feast  as  spectators  or  spies,  finds 
no   ground   for   the  presence  at  the  same  time  of  John's 
disciples.     u  It  by  no  means  follows  from  the  consecution 
and  connection  of  the  narratives,  even  in  Luke  and  Mat- 
thew, that  the  account  of  Matthew's  feast  is  there  con- 
tinued ;  while  in  Mark  another  instance  of  the  same  kind 
seems  to  be  added,  without  any  reference  to  the  date  of  its 
occurrence." 

Admitting  that  none  of  the  Synoptists  show  conclusively 
that  the  Pharisees,  or  the  disciples  of  the  Baptist  were  pres- 
ent at  Matthew's  feast,  still  this  is  the  impression  which  the 
narratives  make  upon  us.  We,  therefore,  place  the  events 
before  us  in  the  following  order,  as  taking  place  upon  the 
same  day :  Matthew's  feast ;  conversation  with  the  Phari- 
sees ;  conversation  with  the  disciples  of  John  ;  coming  of 
Jairus,  It  is  plain  from  Mark  (v.  21,  22)  and  Luke,  (viii. 
40,  41,)  that  the  healing  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus  was  after 
the  return  from  Gadara;  and  we  therefore  put  the  feast  of 
Matthew  or  Levi  after  the  return.  As  has  been  already 
said,  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  Levi  made  the  feast  for 
Jesus  upon  the  day  when  he  was  called  to  follow  Him ;  and 

«  Alford  in  loco  ;  Meek,  Synoptisctae  Erklarung,  i.  888. 


280  THE  LIFE  OP  OUB  LORD. 

we  suppose  that  a  few  days  did  elapse  between  them,  during 
which  several  events  occurred ;  the  plucking  of  the  ears  of 
corn ;  the  choice  of  apostles  ;  healing  of  the  centurion's  ser- 
vant ;  journey  to  Nain ;  return  to  Capernaum ;  visit  to 
Gadara.  Still,  it  is  admitted  that  the  coming  of  Jairus  to 
Jesus  may  have  been  some  time  subsequent  to  the  feast 
of  Levi.  It  is  not  clear  that  the  conversation  with  the 
Pharisees  took  place  at  the  feast ;  or  if  it  did  so,  that  the 
conversation  with  John's  disciples  was  at  the  same  time ;  or 
if  this  was  so,  that  Jairus  came  during  this  conversation. 

As  there  is  much  difference  of  opinion  among  harmon- 
ists, where  this  feast  of  Levi  and  related  events  should  be 
placed,  we  give  some  of  the  more  probable  arrangements. 
And  first,  that  which  connects  together  the  call  of  Levi ;  his 
feast ;  the  conversation  with  the  Pharisees  and  John's  dis- 
ciples ;  and  the  coming  of  Jairus. 

1st  Arrangement. — The  Lord  teaches  in  parables;  crosses 
the  sea  and  heals  the  demoniacs  at  Gergesa ;  returns  to  Ca- 
pernaum ;  heals  the  paralytic ;  calls  Matthew ;  attends  Mat- 
thew's feast ;  heals  the  daughter  of  Jairus ;  chooses  apostles, 
and  delivers  Sermon  on  the  Mount.1  This  order  is  open  to 
the  invincible  objection  that  the  teaching  in  parables  pre- 
cedes the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  the  choice  of  apostles. 

2d  Arrangement. — The  Lord  chooses  apostles;  teaches  in 
parables  ;  crosses  the  sea  and  heals  the  demoniacs  ;  returns 
to  Capernaum ;  heals  the  paralytic ;  calls  Matthew ;  attends 
his  feast ;  heals  the  daughter  of  Jairus."  But  it  is  a  strong 
objection  against  this  order  that  the  choice  of  Matthew  as 
an  apostle  precedes  his  call  to  follow  Christ. 

3 d  Arrangement. — This  places  the  healing  of  the  daugh- 
ter of  Jairus  before  the  feast  of  Matthew.  Jesus  teaches 
in  parables  ;  crosses  the  sea ;  returns  from  Gergesa ;  holds 
the  conversation  with  John's  disciples  respecting  fasting ; 
heals  the  daughter  of  Jairus,  the  woman  with  an  issue  of 

1  Lichtenstein.  Stier. 


THE  FEAST   OP  LEVI.  281 

blood,  the  blind,  and  the  dumb  possessed,  and  the  paralytic 
borne  of  four  ;  He  calls  Matthew  and  attends  his  feast ;  He 
elects  the  apostles  ;  and  delivers  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.1 
Here  the  conversation  with  the  disciples  of  John  is  placed 
earlier  than  the  feast  of  Levi  and  the  conversation  with  the 
Pharisees,  and  is  connected  with  the  coming  of  Jairus.  This 
is  open  to  the  same  objection  as  the  first  arrangement,  that 
it  puts  the  speaking  in  parables  before  the  choice  of  the 
Twelve  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

4th  Arrangement. — Jesus  heals  the  paralytic ;  He  calls 
Matthew ;  attends  his  feast ;  holds  a  conversation  with  the 
Pharisees  and  John's  disciples  respecting  fasting  ;  plucks  the 
ears  of  corn;  (passing  over  the  intervening  events)  He 
crosses  the  lake  and  heals  the  demoniacs  at  Gergesa;  returns 
to  Capernaum  and  heals  the  daughter  of  Jairus.*  Here  the 
coming  of  Jairus  is  separated  from  the  conversation  with 
John's  disciples. 

5th  Arrangement. — Jesus  heals  the  paralytic  ;  He  calls 
Matthew ;  attends  Matthew's  feast ;  holds  a  conversation 
with  the  Pharisees,  but  not  with  John's  disciples.  Here 
follow  many  events,  the  choice  of  the  Twelve  ;  Sermon  on 
the  Mount ;  teaching  in  parables ;  healing  of  demoniacs  at 
Gergesa.  On  his  return  from  Gergesa  He  meets  John's 
disciples,  and  holds  the  conversation  respecting  fasting; 
heals  the  daughter  of  Jairus.  Here  the  conversation  with 
John's  disciples  is  connected  with  the  coming  of  Jairus,  but 
is  separated  from  the  conversation  with  the  Pharisees.  Of 
all  those  arrangements  that  connect  the  feast  of  Matthew 
immediately  with  his  call,  this  seems  the  preferable  one. 

That  order,  however,  which  separates  the  feast  from  the 
call,  and  places  the  former  directly  after  the  return  from 
Gergesa,  thus  bringing  it  into  connection  with  the  conversa- 
tions with  the  Pharisees  and  with  John's  disciples,  and  with 
the  healing  of  Jairus's  daughter,  seems  to  have  most  in  its 

tavor. 

i  Ebrard.  *  Krafft 


282  THE  LIFE   OF  OUB  LORD. 

The  object  of  this  feast,  which  was  a  great  one,  (Luke  v. 
29,)  seems  to  have  been  both  to  honor  the  Lord,  and  to  give 
Him  an  opportunity  to  meet  in  social  intercourse  many 
of  Matthew's  own  class,  the  publicans  and  sinners.  These 
plainly  constituted  the  great  body  of  invited  guests ;  and  for 
the  Lord  thus  publicly  to  eat  with  them  was  a  high  mark 
of  His  regard  for  them,  as  it  was  also  an  open  rebuke  of 
Pharisaic  self-righteousness.  It  seems,  from  the  question 
of  the  Pharisees,  "  Why  eateth  your  master  with  publicans 
and  sinners  ? "  that  this  was  the  first  instance  of  the  kind 
which  they  had  known.  It  is  not  probable  that  any  Phari- 
sees were  invited,  nor  that  they  would  have  accepted  an 
invitation  had  one  been  given  them,  but  with  oriental  free- 
dom on  such  occasions,  may  have  come  in  as  spectators ;  or 
the  language  "  seeing  Him  eat,"  (Mark  ii.  16,)  may  refer 
only  to  their  knowledge  of  the  fact,  and  not  to  their  per- 
sonal observation.  We  may  suppose  that  some  of  John's 
disciples  were  present  with  the  Pharisees,  and  thus  the 
seeming  discrepancy  between  Matt.  ix.  14,  and  Luke  v.  33, 
is  easily  explained,  (see  Mark  ii.  18.)  The  mention  of  John's 
disciples  at  Capernaum  is  to  be  noted  as  showing  that  there 
were  some  there  who  did  not  follow  Jesus,  and  their  affinity 
with  the  Pharisees. 

The  selection  of  Peter,  James,  and  John,  to  go  with  Him 
to  the  house  of  Jairus,  is  the  first  instance  recorded  of  special 
preference  of  these  three  above  the  other  nine  apostles. 
It  is  hardly  to  be  questioned  that  this  selection  was  deter- 
mined by  the  personal  peculiarities  of  these  three,  that 
made  them  more  ready  than  the  others  to  understand  the 
real  meaning  of  Christ's  words  and  works,  and  to  sympa- 
thize with  Him  in  His  trials  and  griefs.  But  why  they 
should  have  been  selected  to  be  present  at  this  particular 
miracle  is  not  apparent.  It  was  not,  according  to  the  or- 
der which  we  follow,  the  first  case  of  raising  the  dead  ;  and 
therefore  they  were  not  present,  as  Trench  supposes,  on 


HEALING   OF  TWO   BLIND  MEN.  283 

this  ground.  But,  unlike  the  raising  of  the  widow's  son  at 
Nain,  which  was  in  public,  before  all  the  funeral  procession, 
the  Lord  will  here  have  no  witnesses  but  His  three  apos- 
tles, and  the  father  and  mother  of  the  maiden.  Nor  will 
He  allow  the  wonderful  work  to  be  proclaimed  abroad : 
"  He  charged  them  strictly  that  no  man  should  know  it." 
The  grounds  of  these  differences  in  the  Lord's  actings  are 
probably  beyond  our  knowledge,  and  cannot  be  explained. 


Autumn,  781-782.     a.  d.  28-29. 

Returning  homeward  from  the  house  of  Jairus  He  is  Matt.  Is.  27-31. 
followed  by  two  blind  men,  saying,  "  Son  of  David,  have 
mercy  on  us."  They  enter  His  house  and  are  healed, 
and  He  charges  them  that  they  should  not  speak  of 
what  He  had  done ;  but  they,  going  forth,  everywhere 
proclaim  it.  As  they  departed,  a  dumb  possessed  was  Matt.  ix.  32-:34. 
brought  to  Him,  whom  He  healed,  to  the  astonishment 
of  the  multitude.  This  gave  the  Pharisees  new  occasion 
to  say  that  He  cast  out  devils  through  Satan. 

These  cases  of  healing  are  mentioned  only  by  Matthew, 
and  by  him  in  immediate  connection  with  the  raising  to 
life  of  the  daughter  of  Jairus.  We  assume  that  he  here 
narrates  in  chronological  order.1  Some*  identify  Matt.  ix. 
32-34  with  Luke  xl  14,  15 ;  and  as  the  healing  of  the 
possessed  was  immediately  after  that  of  the  blind,  place  all 
these  miracles  at  a  much  later  period,  and  after  the  sending 
of  the  Seventy. 

By  these  blind  men  was  Jesus  for  the  first  time  ad- 

»  Robinson,  Oreswell,  Lichtenstein,  Lange,  Ebrard.  Alford,  however,  ob- 
serves that  "  *ap*  iKtiBtv  is  too  vague  to  be  taken  as  a  fixed  note  of  sequence ; 
for  ftcfldtv,  '  thence,'  may  mean  the  house  of  Jairus,  or  the  town  itself,  or 
even  that  part  of  the  country,  as  v.  26  has  generalized  the  locality,  and  im- 
plied some  pause  of  time." 

•  Kraft,  Tischendorf. 


284  THE  LIFE   OP   OUE  LORD. 

dressed  as  "  the  Son  of  David."  This  shows  that  His  de- 
scent  from  that  royal  house  was  known  and  recognized. 
Already  the  people  had  asked  of  Him,  (Matt.  xii.  23,)  "  Is 
this  the  Son  of  David  ?  "  and  the  use  of  the  title  by  the  blind 
men  shows  their  disposition  to  honor  Him  whose  help  they 
sought.1 

The  impression  which  the  miracle  of  healing  the  dumb 
possessed  made  upon  the  multitude,  was  very  great,  and  ex- 
plains why  the  Pharisees  should  repeat  the  charge  that  He 
cast  out  devils  through  the  prince  of  the  devils. 


Winter,  782.    a.  d.  29. 

Leaving  Capernaum  Je9us  goes,  accompanied  by  Matt.  xiii.  53-68. 

His  disciples,  into  lower  Galilee,  and  again  visits  Naza-  Mark  vi.  1-6. 

reth.     Rejected  here  the  second  time,  He  goes  about  Matt.  ix.  36-38. 

through  the  cities  and  villages  in  that  region.    During  Mark  vL  7-11. 

this  circuit  He  commissions  and  sends  out  the  Twelve.  Matt.  i.  1-42. 

In  their  absence  He  continues  His  work.     About  this  Luke  ix.  1-9. 

time  John  is  beheaded  in  prison,  and  the  news  of  his  Matt.  xiv.  1-12. 

death  is  brought  to  Jesus  by  some  of  John's  disciples.  Mark  vi.  14-80. 
Herod  now  hears  of  Christ,  and  expresses  a  desire  to 
see  Him.   Jesus  returns  to  Capernaum,  and  the  Twelve 
gather  to  Him  there. 

In  the  order  of  events  we  follow  Mark :  "  And  He  went 
out  from  thence,  and  came  into  His  own  country ;  and  His 
disciples  follow  Him"  The  place  of  departure  was  the 
house  of  Jairus,  (Meyer,)  or  Capernaum  and  its  neighbor- 
hood, (Alexander.)  Matthew  (xiii.  53-58)  narrates  this 
visit  to  Nazareth  immediately  after  his  account  of  the 
teaching  in  parables :  "  And  it  came  to  pass  when  Jesus 
had  finished  these  parables  He  departed  thence.  And  when 
He  was  come  into  His  own  country,"  Ac.     Here  it  is  not 

1  Compare  (Matt.  xx.  SO)  the  healing  of  the  two  blind  men  at  Jericho, 
whon  the  same  title  was  used;  as  also  by  the  woman  of  Canaan,  (xr.  22.) 


SECOND  VISIT  AT  NAZARETH.  285 

said  that  this  coming  to  Nazareth  was  immediately  subse- 
quent to  the  departure  after  the  parables  were  spoken. 
That  departure  was  not  to  Nazareth,  but  across  the  sea  to 
Gergesa,  (Mark  iv.  35.)  We  must  then  place  between  vs. 
53  and  54  the  healing  of  the  demoniacs,  of  Jairus's  daugh- 
ter, of  the  woman  with  issue  of  blood,  of  the  two  blind 
men,  and  of  the  dumb  possessed.  All  these  may  have 
taken  place  on  the  day  of  the  return  from  Gergesa ;  and 
thus,  between  the  teaching  in  parables  and  the  departure 
to  Nazareth,  only  an  interval  of  two  days  have  elapsed. 

The  grounds  upon  which  this  visit  at  Nazareth  is  to  be 
distinguished  from  the  earlier  one  mentioned  by  Luke,  (iv. 
16,)  have  been  already  stated.  The  circumstances  under 
which  He  now  returns  to  His  early  home  are  very  unlike 
those  of  that  former  visit.  Then  He  had  but  newly  begun 
His  public  labors,  and  was  comparatively  but  little  known  ; 
and  great  surprise  was  felt  that  one,  who  only  a  few  months 
before  had  been  a  resident  among  them,  should  make  so  high 
pretensions.  How  could  He,  whom  they  had  known  from 
childhood  up,  be  a  prophet,  and  possess  such  powers?  Now 
His  fame  was  spread  throughout  the  whole  land,  and  His 
character  as  a  prophet  was  established.  Crowds  followed 
Him  from  all  parts  of  the  land.  His  miracles  were  familiar 
to  all.  He  had,  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  Naza- 
reth, raised  a  dead  man  to  life.  But  His  now  enlarged  and 
confirmed  reputation  did  not  weaken  the  feeling  of  sur- 
prise. All  His  life  was  familiar  to  them,  and  they  could 
not  believe  that  He  was  in  aught  greater  than  themselves. 
Jesus,  therefore,  could  now  well,  and  even  with  greater 
emphasis,  repeat  the  proverb,  "  A  prophet  is  not  without 
honor  but  in  his  own  country ; "  adding,  with  reference  to 
the  continued  unbelief  of  His  brethren,  "  and  among  his 
own  kin,  and  in  his  own  house."  (See  John  vii.  5.)  The 
Nazarenes  do  not  now  take  any  violent  measures  against 
Him,  though  "  offended  at  Him  ; "  and  after  teaching  in 


286  THE  LIFE  OP  OtJB  LORD. 

the  synagogue  and  healing  a  few  sick  folk,  He  made  a  cir- 
cuit through  the  adjacent  villages,  (Mark  vi.  6.)  It  is  prob- 
able that  Matthew  (ix.  35-38)  has  reference  to  this  circuit. 

That  the  sending  of  the  Twelve  upon  their  mission  was 
during  this  journey,  appears  from  the  order  in  which  it 
stands  in  all  the  Synoptists.  Matthew  (ix.  35,  <fcc.)  con- 
nects it  with  the  journey  following  the  healing  of  the  blind 
men,  and  the  dumb  possessed ;  and  Mark  (vi,  7)  with  that 
following  the  departure  from  Nazareth.  Luke  does  not 
mention  this  visit  at  Nazareth,  but  narrates  the  sending  of 
the  Twelve  (ix.  1-6)  directly  after  the  healing  of  Jairus's 
daughter,1  How  long  this  circuit  continued,  or  at  what 
point  in  it  the  Twelve  were  sent  out,  we  have  no  data  to 
determine.  That  it  was  extensive  and  occupied  a  consid- 
erable period  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  Matthew's  lan- 
guage, (ix.  35,)  that  "  He  went  about  all  the  cities  and  vil- 
lages." Nor  can  we  tell  from  what  place  they  were  sent, 
Greswell  (ii,  342)  supposes  it  to  have  been  Capernaum,  and 
that  therefore  the  sending  was  just  at  the  close  of  the  circuit. 
"  It  is  certain  that  after  their  mission  they  rejoined  our 
Lord  at  Capernaum;  and  it  is  not  probable  that  they  would 
be  sent  from  one  quarter  and  be  expected  to  rejoin  Him  at 
another."  On  the  other  hand,  Alford  observes  that  no 
fixed  locality  can  be  assigned  to  their  commission.  "  It 
was  not  delivered  at  Capernaum,  but  on  a  journey."  The 
view  of  Krafft,  (99,)  that  they  were  sent  from  Jerusa- 
lem when  Jesus  was  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (John  v. 
1)  is  in  every  point  of  view  unsatisfactory,  and  is  refuted 
by  the  fact  that  the  theatre  of  His  activity  was  now  Gali- 
lee, and  not  Judea. 

The  work  of  the  Twelve  in  their  mission  corresponded 
in  its  main  features  to  that  of  the  Lord.  He  was  still  en- 
gaged in  going  "  round  about  the  villages  teaching ;"  "  en- 

1  So  Teschendorf,  Robinson,  Alford,  Greswell. 


THE   MISSION   OP  THE  TWELVE.  287 

tering  into  all  the  synagogues,  and  healing  every  sickness 
and  every  disease  amongst  the  people."  The  work  of  the 
apostles  must  be  correspondent  to  this.  They  also  must 
preach  the  Gospel,  and  illustrate  its  nature  by  their  works. 
This  they  were  directed  to  do,  (Matt.  x.  1-8,)  and  this 
they  did.  "  And  they  went  out  and  preached  that  men 
should  repent.  And  they  cast  out  many  devils,  and  anoint- 
ed with  oil  many  that  were  sick,  and  healed  them,"  (Mark 
vL  12,  13  ;  see  Luke  ix.  6.) 

Thus  their  work  had  the  same  general  character  as 
that  of  Jesus.  It  was  not  so  much  to  draw  attention  to 
Jesus  personally,  and  to  proclaim  Him  the  Messiah,  as  to 
announce  the  approach  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  and  to 
teach  men  its  nature,  and  to  prove  it  at  hand  by  their  mir- 
acles. If  men  had  faith  in  the  words  of  the  apostles,  they 
would  soon  come  to  Jesus  to  be  taught  by  Him.  The 
powers  given  them  were  large,  and  perhaps  special  to  this 
mission.  There  is  no  mention  that  up  to  this  time  they 
had  wrought  any  miracles,  nor  that  they  did  so  after  their 
return,  so  long  as  Jesus  was  with  them.1 

It  is  apparent  upon  its  nice  that  the  commission  of  the 
Twelve  had  a  larger  scope  than  these  mere  temporary 
labors.'  It  had  prospective  reference  to  their  larger  work 
after  the  Lord's  ascension ;  and  also  in  some  measure  to  all 
the  missionary  work  of  the  Church  till  His  return.  Some 
directions  in  it  are  plainly  temporary,  as  those  not  to  visit 
the  heathen  or  Samaritans,  and  to  make  no  provision  of 
money  or  clothing.  The  prediction  of  persecutions  and 
scourgings,  on  the  other  hand,  had,  at  this  time,  no  ful- 
filment. 

Where  did  the  Twelve  labor  ?  Luke  (ix.  6)  says,  "they 
departed  and  went  through  the  towns."     It  has  been  sup- 

>  8ee,  bowerer,  Matt  rrii  19,  20,  which  implies  that  the  power  to  work 
miracles  was  not  withdrawn,  but  was  dependent  upon  their  faith. 
»  Jones,  Notes  on  Scripture,  100 ;  Stier,  ii.  2. 


288  THE  LIFE  OF   OUB  LOED. 

posed  that  this  expression  "  towns,"  /cu^as,  may  be  used 
here  in  opposition  to  cities,  implying  that  the  Twelve  visited 
only  the  smaller  places.  But  the  same  expression  is  used 
of  the  Lord  Himself,  (Mark  vi.  6.)  Probably  their  labors 
were  confined  to  Galilee.  They  were  forbidden  to  enter 
Samaria,  and  it  is  not  likely  that  they  would  enter  Judea, 
from  which  the  Lord  was  excluded.  As  they  journeyed 
two  by  two,  this  would  enable  them  to  visit  many  towns  in 
a  few  days.  How  long  they  were  absent  upon  their  mis- 
sion does  not  appear.  Wieseler,  followed  by  Teschendorf, 
would  limit  it  to  a  single  day ;  Ellicott  to  two  days ;  Kraffl 
extends  it  to  several  months;  Greswell  makes  them  to  have 
been  sent  upon  their  ministry  in  February,  and  to  have  re- 
turned in  March,  an  interval  of  one  or  two  months.  That 
they  were  engaged  in  their  labors  several  weeks  at  least,  is 
plainly  implied  in  the  terms  of  their  commission ;  for  although 
this,  as  we  have  seen,  had  reference  also  to  their  future 
ministry,  it  had  more  immediate  reference  to  the  present. 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  brief  statements  of  their  actual 
labors.     (See  Luke  ix.  6 ;  Mark  vi.  12,  13,  and  30.) 

The  commission  of  the  Twelve  is  remarkable,  as  contain- 
ing a  much  fuller  declaration  respecting  the  hatred  they 
should  meet,  and  the  persecutions  they  should  suffer,  than 
was  at  any  other  time  uttered  by  the  Lord  previous  to  the 
transfiguration.  This  must  have  been  in  striking  contrast 
to  the  opinions  the  apostles  were  yet  cherishing  respecting 
the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  and  His  general  reception  by  the 
people.  By  speaking  of  their  sufferings  and  persecutions, 
He  announced,  by  implication,  His  own  sufferings  and  rejec- 
tion, although  it  is  apparent  that  they  did  not  understand 
the  import  of  His  words. 

That  Jesus  continued  His  own  personal  labors  during 
the  absence  of  the  Twelve,  appears  from  Matthew,  (xi.  1,) 
that  "when  He  had  made  an  end  of  commanding  His  Twelve 
disciples,  He  departed  thence  to  teach  and  preach  in  their 


DEATH   OP  THE   BAPTIST.  280 

cities."  In  these  journeyings  He  was  probably  accompanied 
by  other  disciples,  doubtless  by  some  of  those  who  were 
afterward  chosen  among  the  Seventy,  (Luke  x.  1 ;)  and  per- 
haps also  by  the  women  who  had  before  been  with  Him. 
If,  as  is  probable,  He  had  given  direction  to  the  Twelve  to 
rejoin  Him  at  Capernaum  at  some  fixed  time,  He  would 
now  so  direct  His  own  course  as  to  meet  them  there. 

It  was  during  the  mission  of  the  Twelve  that  the  death 
of  John  the  Baptist  occurred.  The  news  of  it  seems  to 
have  been  communicated  to  Jesus  by  John's  disciples, 
(Matt.  xiv.  12,)  but  this  must  have  been  some  days  at  least 
after  the  event.  As  the  death  of  John  had  an  important 
bearing  upon  the  Lord's  work,  and  to  a  great  degree  de- 
termined its  subsequent  character,  we  must  examine  the 
data  that  define  the  time  of  its  occurrence. 

The  chief  datum  in  this  inquiry  is  the  statement  of  John 
(vi.  4)  that  a  Passover  took  place  a  little  after  the  feeding 
of  the  five  thousand.  This  Passover,  the  third  of  our 
Lord's  ministry,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  that  of  782,  and  fell 
on  the  17th  April.  The  death  of  John  was  then  a  few 
days  before  this.  The  exact  date  we  cannot  tell,  as  we  do 
not  know  how  long  it  preceded  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand,  nor  how  long  this  feeding  preceded  the  Passover, 
If  John  was  beheaded  at  Machaerus,  on  the  southern  bor- 
der of  Perea,  some  days  must  have  elapsed  ere  his  disciples 
could  bury  his  body,  and  come  to  inform  Jesus.  So  far  as 
these  data  go  we  may  place  his  death  at  the  latter  part  of 
March,  or  the  beginning  of  April,  782. 

Wieseler  (202)  has  attempted  to  reach  a  more  definite 
result  from  the  statements  of  Matt.  xiv.  6,  and  Mark  vi. 
21,  that  Herod  gave  order  for  the  death  of  John  at  a  feast 
held  upon  his  birthday.  The  word  translated  "  birthday," 
ycv«rux,  is  generally  interpreted  in  its  later  and  New  Testa- 
ment usage,  as  meaning  birthday  festivals,  or  celebrations.1 

1  Robinson,  Meyer,  OUhausen. 
13 


290  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD. 

If  it  be  so  used  here  by  the  Evangelists,  it  gives  us  no 
chronological  datum,  since  we  do  not  know  the  time  of 
Herod's  birth.  Wieseler,  however,  after  Grotius  and 
others,  would  make  it  refer  to  the  feast  kept  in  honor  of  his 
accession  to  the  throne,  and  in  this  way  obtains  a  known 
date,  the  8th  Nisan,  or  11th  April,  782,  as  the  day  of  John's 
execution.  Greswell,  (iii.  425,)  who  also  supposes  that 
Herod  was  celebrating  his  accession,  on  the  grounds  that 
"  the  day  of  a  king's  accession  was  both  considered  and 
celebrated  as  his  birthday ; "  and  that  the  magnificence  of 
his  entertainment  (Mark  vL  21)  shows  that  he  was  commem- 
orating something  more  than  his  birthday,  reaches  the  re- 
sult that  John  was  put  to  death  about  the  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, Sept.  22,  781.1  Still  this  interpretation  of  "birth- 
day "  is  too  uncertain  to  allow  any  great  weight  to  be 
placed  upon  it.9 

We  rest,  then,  in  the  conclusion  that  John  was  beheaded 
in  the  latter  part  of  March,  or  beginning  of  April,  782.' 

From  Mark  vi.  13,  14,  and  Luke  ix.  6,  7,  it  appears 
that  it  was  not  till  after  the  death  of  John  that  Herod 
heard  of  Jesus.  But  how  could  He  have  been  so  long  ac- 
tive in  one  of  Herod's  provinces,  followed  by  great  multi- 
tudes, performing  daily  the  most  wonderful  works,  and  His 
residence  only  a  very  few  miles  from  Tiberias,  where  the 
king  kept  his  court,  and  yet  His  fame  never  reach  the  royal 
ears  ?  The  most  ready  explanation  would  be,  that  during 
His  ministry  Herod  had  been  absent  from  Galilee,  either 
on  a  visit  at  Rome,  whither  he  went  about  this  time ;  or 
had  been  engaged  in  hostilities  with  Aretas,  and  thus  re- 


1  Teschendorf,  xxxiii.,  agrees  with  Wieseler ;  so  Ebrard,  186 ;  Elli- 
cott,  195. 

3  See  Alford  and  Meyer,  notes  on  Matt.  xiv.  6. 

•  So  Guder,  Herzog  Encyc,  vi.  770 ;  Lichtenstein,  252 ;  Lange.  Winer, 
i.  590,  finds  no  satisfactory  data  to  determine  the  time  of  his  imprisonment, 
or  execution. 


HEROD'S  IGNORANCE   OP  JESUS.  291 

mained  in  good  measure  ignorant  of  what  was  taking  place.1 
There  is  much  probability  in  this  supposition  of  Herod's 
absence,  but  decisive  proof  is  wanting.  If,  however,  he 
were  in  Galilee  during  this  period,  his  ignorance  of  Jesus 
finds  a  sufficient  explanation  in  his  own  personal  character. 
We  know  from  Josephus  that  he  was  a  lover  of  ease  and 
pleasure  ;  and  a  man  who  occupied  himself  more  in  erecting 
fine  buildings  than  in  public  affairs.  Like  all  the  Herodian 
family,  he  treated  the  Jewish  religion  with  respect  as  a 
matter  of  policy,  but  did  not  interfere  with  ecclesiastical 
matters,  except  he  saw  movements  dangerous  to  the  public 
peace.  The  disputes  of  contending  sects,  or  the  theological 
discussions  of  the  Rabbins,  had  no  attractions  for  him ;  and 
provided  the  Jews  were  orderly  and  peaceful,  he  cared  not 
to  interfere  in  their  religious  quarrels.  John's  ministry 
continued  a  considerable  period  without  any  interruption 
on  li is  part ;  and  when  he  at  last  imprisoned  him,  it  was  on 
personal,  not  on  political  or  religious  grounds.  Hence  we 
can  understand  how  Jesus  might  prosecute  His  work  in 
Galilee,  in  the  vicinity  of  Herod,  without  the  latter  learning 
any  thing  definite  respecting  it,  or  having  his  attention 
specially  directed  to  His  character  or  designs.  As  a  new 
religious  teacher,  the  founder  of  a  new  sect,  an  opponent 
of  the  Pharisees  and  scribes,  the  matter  was  unimportant, 
and  beneath  the  royal  notice.  Unless  the  public  tranquillity 
was  actually  disturbed,  or  seriously  threatened,  Herod,  like 
Gallio,  cared  for  none  of  these  things. 

During  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist,  Herod  seems 
to  have  had  several  interviews  with  him,  and  learned  to 
appreciate  his  bold  and  fearless  honesty,  (Mark  vi.  20.)  He 
did  many  things  that  John  recommended,  and  heard  him 
gladly.  Hence,  when  in  his  drunken  revelry  he  had  given 
up  the  Baptist  to  the  malice  of  Herodias,  he  was  troubled 
in  conscience ;  and  his  ears  were  open  to  any  tidings  that 

Greawell,  iii.  428. 


292  THE  LIFE  OF   OUE  LORD. 

had  connection  with  the  departed  prophet.  It  was  a  short 
time  before  this  that  Jesus  had  sent  out  the  Twelve ; 
a  step  that  would  naturally  turn  public  attention  to  Him, 
and  which  might  easily  be  misinterpreted.  It  would  arouse 
His  watchful  enemies  to  action,  for  it  apparently  indicated 
a  purpose  to  disseminate  His  doctrine  more  widely,  and  to 
make  disciples  in  larger  numbers.  It  might  thus  easily, 
through  them,  reach  the  ears  of  Herod,  who  would  be  led 
to  inquire  more  particularly  into  the  character  and  works 
of  the  new  Rabbi.  But  his  informants  gave  him  different  an- 
swers, (Mark  vi.  14,  15  ;  Luke  ix.  7,  8.)  Some  said  that  He 
was  Elias ;  others  that  He  was  a  prophet,  or  as  one  of  the 
prophets ;  and  others  still,  ignorant  of  His  earlier  work,  said 
that  He  was  John  the  Baptist  risen  from  the  dead.  This  last 
account,  to  the  uneasy  and  superstitious  mind  of  Herod,  was 
most  credible,  and  explained  how  He  wrought  such  mighty 
works  as  were  ascribed  to  Him.  Returned  to  life,  he  could 
do  what  could  be  done  by  no  one  in  mortal  flesh,  (Matt, 
xiv.  2  ;  Mark  vi.  14.)  All  this  awakened  in  Herod  a  lively 
desire  to  see  Jesus,  but  no  intimation  is  given  us  that  he 
designed  to  arrest  Him,  or  to  hinder  Him  in  His  work. 
Thus  far  the  Messianic  claims  of  the  Lord  had  been  pur- 
posely kept  in  the  background ;  and  there  was  nothing  in 
His  teachings  or  actings,  to  awaken  Herod's  jealousy  of 
Him  as  a  claimant  of  the  throne.  At  no  period  does  the 
king  seem  to  have  looked  upon  Him  with  any  dislike,  or 
fear,  as  a  political  leader.  The  threatenings  of  the  Pharisees 
at  a  later  period,  that  Herod  would  kill  Him,  (Luke  xiil 
31,)  seem  to  have  been  a  device  of  their  own  to  frighten 
Him  from  His  labors. 

According  to  Josephus,1  John  was  put  to  death  at 
Machaerus,  a  fortress  at  the  southern  extremity  of  Perea 
on  the  borders  of  Arabia.  When  the  first  wife  of  Herod, 
learning  his  design  to  marry  Herodias,  fled  from  him  to  her 

»  Antiq.,  18.  5.  2. 


PLAGE   OF  THE  BAPTIST'S  DEATH.  293 

father  Aretas,  king  of  Arabia,  this  fortress  belonged  to 
the  Arabians.1  At  what  period  did  it  come  into  the  hands 
of  Herod  ?*  ^Greswell  (iii.  423)  supposes  that  John  reproved 
Herod,  when  he  knew  that  a  marriage  with  Herodias  was 
intended,  and  before  its  completion.  Having  imprisoned 
John,  he  departed  to  Rome,  and  on  his  return  beheaded 
him.  According  to  this  order  of.  events,  Herod  now  had 
possession  of  Machaerus,  but  it  very  soon  fell  into  the  hands 
of  Aretas,  and  was  in  his  hands  when  his  daughter  fled  from 
Herod.  But  the  common  interpretation  of  the  Evangelists, 
that  Herod  had  taken  Herodias  as  his  wife  before  he  was 
reproved  by  John,  is  most  probable.  Very  soon,  therefore, 
after  his  first  wife's  return  home,  this  fortress  must  have 
been  captured  by  Herod,  but  when  or  how  we  have  no 
knowledge.*  It  has  been  questioned  whether  Herod  would 
have  made  a  birthday  feast  at  the  southern  extremity  of  his 
dominions,  where  it  would  be  difficult  for  the  courtiers  and 
noblemen  of  his  court  to  attend.  Still,  if  we  remember 
that  the  Jews  generally  were  in  the  habit  of  going  up  from 
the  most  remote  parts  of  the  land  to  Jerusalem,  once  or 
more  every  year  to  the  feasts,  the  journey  of  a  few  courtiers 
to  Machaerus  will  not  seem  strange.  Besides,  if  Herod  was 
detained  there  through  the  war,  or  other  cause,  the  feast 
must  follow  his  pleasure ;  and  if  Machaerus  was  not  conve- 
nient to  his  guests  from  Galilee,  it  was  more  convenient  to 
those  from  Perea. 

Some,  however,  have  supposed  that  the  feast  did  not 
take  place  at  Machaerus,  although  John  was  beheaded 
there,  but  at  Tiberias,  or  at  Julias.  But  although  possible 
that  the  head  of  the  Baptist  should  have  been  taken  from 
Machaerus  to  Tiberias  before  the  feast  ended,  yet  the  ob- 
vious interpretation  of  the  narrative  is,  that  he  was  beheaded 

>  Antiq.,  18.  6. 1  and  2. 

•  Gams,  der  Taufer,  47.    This  supposed  inconsistency  in  Josephus  has  led 
some  to  doubt  whether  indeed  the  Baptist  was  imprisoned  at  Machaerus. 


294  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

the  same  night  in  which  the  daughter  of  Herodias  danced 
before  the  king,  or  at  least  that  no  long  interval  elapsed. 
If  the  feast  was  not  at  Machaerus,  where  most  place  it,1  it 
.  was  most  probably  at  Julias,  as  said  by  Wieseler,  which 
was  at  no  great  distance,  and  where  Herod  had  a  summer 

palace. 

i  Meyer,  Alford,  Gams. 


PART   IV. 

FROM  THE  DEATH  OF  THE  BAPTIST  TO  THE  FINAL  DE- 
PARTURE FROM  GALILEE,  OR  FROM  APRIL  TO  OCTO- 
BER,  782.     A.D.  29. 


Upon  the  Lord's  Ministry  in  Galilee  from  the  death 
of  the  Baptist  till  its  close. 

The  connection  between  the  imprisonment  of  the  Bap- 
tist and  the  commencement  of  the  Lord's  ministry  in  Gali- 
lee, has  been  already  considered.  The  same  moral  causes 
that  determined  this  connection,  make  the  death  of  the 
Baptist  important  in  its  influence  upon  the  subsequent  char- 
acter of  that  ministry.  It  appears  from  the  notices  of  the 
Evangelists  that  when  this  event  occurred,  the  popularity 
of  Jesus,  if  we  may  use  this  word,  was  at  its  height  in  Gali- 
lee. Great  multitudes  follow  Him  wherever  He  goes,  and 
so  throng  Him  that  He  has  no  leisure  even  to  eat.  From 
every  part  of  the  land  they  come  to  listen  to  His  teachings 
and  to  be  healed.  Nor  may  we  ascribe  this  concourse 
merely  to  curiosity  and  selfishness.  These  doubtless  ruled 
in  many ;  but  that  there  was  also  at  this  period  a  largo 
measure  of  faith  in  Him  as  one  sent  from  God,  appears  from 
the  fact  that  u  whithersoever  He  entered,  into  villages  or 
cities,  or  country,  they  laid  the  sick  in  the  streets,  and  bo* 


296  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LOBD. 

sought  Him  that  they  might  touch  if  it  were  but  the  bor- 
der of  His  garment ;  and  as  many  as  touched  it  were  made 
whole."  As  His  healing  power  seems  now  to  have  been 
manifested  in  its  greatest  activity,  so  now  He  performs  one 
of  the  most  stupendous  of  His  miracles,  the  feeding  of  the 
five  thousand.  At  no  period  of  His  ministry  did  He  stand 
in  such  high  reputation  with  the  people  at  large  as  a 
Teacher  and  Prophet ;  and  to  the  human  eye,  His  labors 
seemed  about  to  be  crowned  with  great  results. 

It  was  at  this  stage  of  His  ministry  that  He  hears  of 
the  Baptist's  death*  To  His  clear-seeing  eye  the  fate  of 
His  forerunner  was  prophetic  of  His  own.  As  the  Jews 
"  had  done  unto  the  Baptist  whatsoever  they  listed,  as  it 
was  written  of  Him,"  so  He  knew  that  He  also  "  must  suffer 
many  things  and  be  set  at  naught,"  (Mark  ix.  12,  13.) 
However  well  disposed  toward  Him  individuals  among  the 
people  might  be,  there  was  no  longer  hope  that  the  nation, 
as  such,  would  receive  Him.  The  more  clearly  He  revealed 
His  Messianic  character  in  its  higher  features,  the  more  all 
the  worldly  minded,  the  unspiritual,  turned  away  from 
Him.  His  popularity  rested  upon  no  solid  or  permanent 
basis,  as  there  was  no  recognition  of  His  divinity,  and  He 
was  deemed  merely  the  equal  of  John  or  Elijah.  From 
this  time,  therefore,  He  begins  to  act  as  in  view  of  His  ap- 
proaching death.  More  and  more  He  withdraws  Himself 
from  the  crowds  that  follow  Him,  and  devotes  Himself 
to  the  instruction  of  His  disciples.  It  is  not  now  so  much 
His  purpose  to  gather  new  adherents,  as  to  teach  those  al- 
ready believing  on  Him  the  great  mysteries  of  His  person 
and  work.  As  yet  the  knowledge  of  even  the  Twelve  was 
very  imperfect ;  and  He  could  not  be  personally  separated 
from  them  till  He  had  taught  them  of  His  divine  origin, 
and,  as  subsequent  to  this,  of  His  death,  resurrection,  as- 
cension, and  of  His  coming  again  in  glory. 
.    As  the  Lord  seemed  thus  to  shun  public  observation,  it 


LATEB   MINISTRY   IN  GAIJLEE.  297 

was  natural  that  the  popular  favor  which  had  followed  Him 
should  suffer,  at  least,  a  temporary  diminution ;  and  that 
this  should  have  been  the  signal  for  increased  activity  on 
the  part  of  His  enemies.  As  He  made  no  distinct  assertion 
of  His  Messianic  claims  before  the  people  at  large,  and,  so 
far  from  assuming  royal  dignity,  seemed  rather  to  take  the 
position  of  a  mere  Rabbi,  the  fickle  multitude  was  the  more 
easily  affected  by  the  accusations  and  invectives  of  His 
foes.  His  teachings  also  seem  to  have  gradually  assumed  a 
more  mysterious  and  repellent  character.  He  speaks  of 
Himself  as  "the  bread  of  life;"  of  the  necessity  of  "eating 
His  flesh  and  drinking  His  blood ; "  language  so  incompre- 
hensible and  so  offensive,  that  many,  even  of  His  disciples, 
forsook  Him.  To  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  He  addresses 
reproaches  of  unwonted  severity.  Up  to  this  time  He  had 
been  engaged  in  gathering  disciples,  and  for  their  sake  He 
would  not  willingly  array  against  Himself  those  whom  all 
the  people  had  been  taught  to  honor  as  their  ecclesiastical 
rulers  and  teachers.  Such  open  hostility  on  their  part,  and 
a  corresponding  severity  of  rebuke  on  His,  would  have  been 
a  stumbling  block  to  the  tender  conscience,  and  half  enlight- 
ened mind.  But  the  time  is  come  that  the  line  of  separa- 
tion must  be  clearly  drawn,  and  the  truth  respecting  Him- 
self and  His  enemies  be  openly  spoken ;  and  His  disciples 
learn  that  to  follow  Him  involves  the  fierce  and  persistent 
enmity  of  their  spiritual  rulers  and  guides — an  enmity  which 
should  follow  them  even  after  His  own  death. 

That  which  specially  characterizes  the  second  part  of 
the  Lord's  ministry  in  Galilee,  or  that  from  the  death  of  the 
Baptist  onward,  we  thus  find  to  be,  a  gradual  withdrawal 
of  Himself  from  the  multitude  and  from  public  labors ;  and 
the  devotion  of  Himself  to  the  instruction  of  His  disciples. 
When  by  these  instructions  He  has  prepared  them  to  un- 
derstand His  Divine  Sonship  and  what  should  befall  Him  at 
Jerusalem,  His  Galilean  ministry  comes  to  its  end. 
13* 


298 


THE  LIFE   OP  OUB  LOUD. 


April,  782.      a.  d.  29. 


After  the  return  of  the  Twelve  to  Him  at  Caper- 
naum, Jesus  prepares  to  go  with  them  across  the  sea  to 
find  seclusion  and  rest.  They  desire  to  go  privately, 
but  the  multitudes  seeing  them  departing  by  ship,  fol- 
low them  on  foot  along  the  shore,  and  come  to  the 
place  where  He  had  gone.  He  heals  their  sick,  and  the 
same  evening  feeds  5,000  men  besides  women  and 
children.  Immediately  after,  He  compels  the  disci- 
ples to  return  in  the  ship  to  Capernaum,  and  remains  to 
dismiss  the  people.  He  spends  the  night  alone,  and 
early  in  the  morning  walks  upon  the  sea  to  rejoin  the 
disciples  who  had  been  driven  from  their  course  by  the 
wind,  and  were  unable  to  make  the  land.  Having 
rescued  Peter,  who  attempts  to  walk  upon  the  water  to 
meet  Him,  they  both  enter  the  boat,  and  immediately 
come  to  the  shore  in  the  land  of  Gennesaret. 


Mark  vi.  30-44. 
Lukb  ix.  10-17. 
John  vi.  1-4. 
Matt.  xiv.  13, 1 


Matt.  xiv.  15-27. 
John  vi.  5-14. 
Mark  vi.  45-53. 
John  vi.  15-21. 


Matt.  xiv.  28-34. 


It  is  not  said  where  Jesus  was  when  the  disciples  of 
John  came  to  Him  to  announce  their  master's  death,  (Matt, 
xiv.  12,)  but  it  was  natural  that  they  should  seek  Him  at 
Capernaum.  About  the  same  time  the  Twelve,  who  had 
been  absent  on  their  mission,  rejoined  Him.  Perhaps  their 
return  at  this  juncture  may  have  been  determined  by  the 
tidings  of  the  death  of  the  Baptist,  which  must  very  soon 
have  become  widely  and  generally  known.  As  usual, 
whenever  Jesus  after  one  of  His  circuits  returned  to  Caper- 
naum, the  people  of  the  surrounding  cities  and  villages 
flocked  to  see  Him,  bringing  with  them  their  sick.  "  Many 
were  coming  and  going,  and  they  had  no  leisure  so  much 
as  to  eat,"  (Mark  vi.  31.)  Jesus  therefore  determines  to 
cross  the  sea  and  find  repose  in  the  uninhabited  hills  upon 
the  eastern  shore.  Some  attribute  this  departure  to  fear  of 
Herod's  hostility,  and  this  has  some  countenance  in  the 
language  of  Matt.  xiv.  13.    But  a  more  careful  examination 


SECOND   CROSSING  THE  SEA.  299 

shows  us  that  this  could  not  have  been  His  motive.  Mark 
(vi  31)  gives  the  Lord's  own  words  to  the  apostles,  "  Come 
ye  yourselves  apart  into  a  desert  place,  and  rest  awhile ; " 
adding  the  explanatory  remark  that  "  they  had  no  leisure 
so  much  as  to  eat."  He  desired  to  separate  the  apostles 
from  the  multitude  ;  and  to  give  them,  after  their  labors,  a 
little  period  of  repose,  such  as  was  not  possible  for  them  to 
obtain  at  Capernaum.  Perhaps,  also,  He  Himself  desired  a 
few  hours  for  solitary  communion  with  God,  for  the  refresh- 
ment of  His  own  spirit,  agitated  by  the  death  of  John, 
whom  He  mourned  as  a  faithful  friend ;  and  in  whose  un- 
timely and  violent  end  He  saw  the  sign  and  foreshadowing 
of  His  own  approaching  death. 

That  the  departure  across  the  sea  was  not  through  fear 
of  personal  violence  from  Herod,  appears  also  from  the  fact 
that  Jesus  the  next  day  returned,  landing  publicly  upon  the 
shore  of  Gennesaret ;  and  thence  attended  by  crowds  went 
to  Capernaum,  where  He  taught  openly  in  the  synagogue, 
(Mark  vi.  53-65  ;  John  vi.  22-59.)  And  after  this,  as  be- 
fore, He  continued  to  make  Capernaum  His  abode,  and 
was  not  molested  by  Herod.  Norton  suggests  that  the 
death  of  John  had  produced  a  sudden  excitement  among 
the  people ;  and  that  public  attention  began  to  be  turned  to 
Jesus  as  one  who  might  avenge  his  murder,  and  become 
Himself  their  king.  It  was  to  escape  the  people,  rather 
than  Herod,  that  He  crossed  the  sea.  But  the  desire  to 
make  Him  king,  (John  vi.  15,)  seems  to  have  been  rather 
the  effect  of  the  miracle  He  wrought  than  of  any  popular 
indignation  because  of  John's  death. 

The  place  to  which  the  Lord  directed  His  course  across 
the  sea,  was  "  a  desert  place  belonging  to  the  city  called 
Bethsaida,"  (Luke  ix.  10.)  The  position  of  this  city  has  been 
already  discussed.  According  to  the  conclusion  then 
reached,  it  was  situated  just  at  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan 
into  the  sea,  and  upon  both  banks  of  the  stream.    Upon  the 


300  THE  LITE  OF   OUB  LORD. 

east  side  lies  the  rich  level  plain  of  Butaiha,  (Batihah,)  form- 
ing a  triangle,  of  which  the  eastern  mountains  make  one 
side,  and  the  river  bank  and  the  lake  shore  the  two  other. 
This  plain,  with  its  bordering  hills,  probably  belonged  to 
Bethsaida.  It  was  at  the  southeastern  angle  of  this  plain, 
where  the  hills  come  down  close  to  the  shore,  that  Thom- 
son (ii.  29)  places  the  site  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thou- 
sand. "  From  the  four  narratives  of  this  stupendous  mir- 
acle, we  gather,  1st,  that  the  place  belonged  to  Bethsaida ; 
2d,  that  it  was  a  desert  place ;  3d,  that  it  was  near  the 
shore  of  the  lake,  for  they  came  to  it  by  boats ;  4th,  that 
there  was  a  mountain  close  at  hand ;  5  th,  that  it  was  a 
smooth,  grassy  spot,  capable  of  seating  many  thousand 
people.  Now  all  these  requisites  are  found  in  this  exact 
locality,  and  nowhere  else,  so  far  as  I  can  discover.  This 
Butaiha  belonged  to  Bethsaida.  At  this  extreme  south- 
east corner  of  it,  the  mountain  shuts  down  upon  the  lake, 
bleak  and  barren.  It  was,  doubtless,  desert  then  as  now, 
for  it  is  not  capable  of  cultivation.  In  this  little  cove  the 
ships  (boats)  were  anchored.  On  this  beautiful  sward,  at 
the  base  of  the  rocky  hill,  the  people  were  seated."  ' 

We  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Thomson  has  rightly 
fixed  upon  the  site  of  the  miracle.  Tradition,  indeed,  placed 
it  upon  the  west  side  of  the  lake,  near  the  city  of  Tiberias. 
Arculf  (a.  d.  700)  was  shown  "  a  grassy  and  level  plain, 
which  had  never  been  ploughed  since  that  event."  But  the 
tradition,  though  old,  has  no  basis.* 

There  is  a  slight  seeming  discrepancy  in  the  statements 
of  Matthew  and  Mark  respecting  the  meeting  of  Jesus  with 
the  multitude  that  followed  Him.  Matthew  relates  that 
"  Jesus  went  forth  and  saw  a  great  multitude,  and  was 
moved  with  compassion,"  &c. ;  implying  that  He  had  al- 

1  See  also  Porter,  Hand  Book,  ii.  426. 

8  It  has,  however,  been  recently  defended  by  Thrupp,  Journal  of  Class, 
and  Sac.  Philology,  roh  ii.  290. 


THE   MULTITUDES   FOLLOW  HIM.  301 

ready  reached  the  place  He  sought  ere  the  crowds  came. 
Mark  relates  that  the  crowds  "  outwent  them,  and  came 
together  unto  Him.  And  Jesus,  when  He  came  out,"  L  e., 
from  the  ship,  "  saw  much  people,  and  was  moved  with 
compassion  toward  them,"  &c.  Whether  any  discrepancy 
exists  depends  upon  the  meaning  of  "  went  forth,"  c£t\0w, 
in  Matthew.  Meyer  refers  it  to  His  coming  forth  from  His 
place  of  retirement.1  In  his  note  on  Mark,  (vi.  34,)  Alford 
remarks :  "  There  is  nothing  in  Matthew  to  imply  that  He 
had  reached  His  place  of  solitude  before  the  multitudes 
came  up."  There  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why  the 
u  went  forth  "  in  Matthew,  should  be  differently  understood 
from  the  "  came  out "  of  Mark ;  the  word  in  both  cases  being 
the  same,  and  in  both  may  refer  to  His  coming  out  of  the 
ship.  Lichtenstein  reconciles  the  discrepancy  by  supposing 
that  a  few  came  before  Jesus  reached  the  shore,  but  unwill- 
ing to  intrude  upon  Him,  waited  till  the  others  came ;  so 
that  He  had  a  little  interval  of  retirement  ere  He  went  forth 
to  heal  the  sick  and  teach. 

Some  have  supposed  that  John  (vi.  4)  mentions  the  fact 
that  "  the  Passover  was  nigh,"  to  explain  why  so  great  a 
company  should  have  gathered  to  Him  of  men,  women,  and 
children.  They  were  composed,  at  least  in  part,  of  those 
that  were  journeying  toward  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  feast.9 
Alexander,  on  the  other  band,  objects  that,  from  the  fact 
that  they  had  nothing  to  eat,  they  could  scarcely  be  a  caravan 
of  pilgrims,  but  were  probably  just  come  from  their  own 
homes.  It  would  seem  that  the  people  were  mostly  from 
Capernaum  and  the  towns  adjacent.     (See  Mark  vi.  33.) 

It  was,  as  has  already  been  shown,  the  Lord's  desire  to 
go  privately  with  the  apostles,  and  thus  escape  the  multi- 
tudes, but  as  His  preparations  to  depart  were  necessarily 
made  in  public,  and  the  departure  itself  was  in  sight  of  all, 

»  So  Norton,  Bengel,  Trench. 

«  So  Trench,  Mir.,  214 ;  Bengel,  Meyer.    Alford  doubU. 


302  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LOED. 

He  could  not  prevent  them  from  following  Him.  It  strik- 
ingly marks  the  strong  hold  He  now  had  upon  the  people 
at  large,  that  so  great  a  number  should  follow  Him  so  far. 
That  they  should  be  able  to  keep  pace  with  those  in  the 
boat,  will  not  appear  strange  if  we  remember  the  relative 
positions  of  Capernaum  and  Bethsaida,  as  already  defined. 
From  the  former  city,  which  we  identify  with  Tell  Hum, 
to  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan,  where  we  place  Bethsaida, 
is,  according  to  Robinson,  one  hour  and  five  minutes,  or 
about  two  and  a  half  geographical  miles.  The  distance 
from  the  entrance  of  the  Jordan  along  the  eastern  shore  to 
the  point  where  the  mountains  approach  the  lake,  is  also 
about  an  hour.  The  whole  distance,  then,  which  the  people 
had  to  travel,  was  not  more  than  six  or  eight  miles,  and 
from  the  conformation  of  the  coast,  could  be  as  rapidly 
passed  by  those  on  the  shore  as  those  in  the  boat.  Gres- 
well,1  who  puts  this  Bethsaida  at  the  southeastern  angle 
of  the  lake,  supposes  that  Jesus  set  out  from  Capernaum  in 
the  evening,  and  landed  at  Bethsaida  in  the  morning,  and 
that  the  people,  who  ran  before  on  foot,  travelled  all  night, 
a  distance  of  about  sixteen  Roman  miles.  This  needs  no 
refutation. 

The  presence  of  this  multitude,  that  had  followed  Him 
so  far,  awakened  the  Lord's  compassion ;  and  receiving  them 
He  "  spake  unto  them  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  healed 
them  that  had  need  of  healing,"  (Luke  ix.  11.)  From 
John's  language,  (vi.  5,)  it  would  seem  that  the  Lord  first 
addressed  Philip  with  the  inquiry,  "  Whence  shall  we  buy 
bread  that  these  may  eat  ?  "  According  to  the  Synoptists, 
it  was  the  disciples  who  proposed  to  Him  that  He  should 
send  them  away  that  they  might  buy  themselves  victuals. 
But  none  of  the  Evangelists  narrate  all  the  conversation 
that  passed  between  Jesus  and  the  disciples.  Probably  the 
disciples  first  proposed  to  send  the  people  away  to  get 

1  ii.  344,  note. 


FEEDING   OP  THE  FIVE  THOUSAND.  303 

food,  and  He  replies,  "  Give  ye  them  to  eat,"  (Mark  vi.  35- 
37.)  This  leads  to  a  general  conversation  in  which  He  spe- 
cially addresses  Philip,  and  asks  where  bread  could  be 
bought.  He  then  directs  them  to  make  inquiry  how  many 
loaves  they  had.  After  making  inquiry,  Andrew  reports 
that  there  were  five  barley  loaves  and  two  small  fishes ; 
and  hereupon  He  proceeds  to  feed  the  multitude.  Why 
the  question  was  addressed  particularly  to  Philip,  does  not 
appear,  except  that  the  Lord  would  prove  him.  As  a  resi- 
dent of  Bethsaida,  he  would,  however,  naturally  know  how 
food  could  be  procured  in  that  region  better  than  the  other 
apostles. 

The  effect  of  this  miracle  upon  the  minds  of  those  pres- 
ent was  very  great.  So  mighty  and  wonderful  an  exhibi- 
tion of  power,  reminding  them  perhaps  of  the  feeding  of 
their  fathers  in  the  wilderness  by  Moses,  led  them  to  say, 
"  This  is  of  a  truth  that  prophet  that  should  come  into  the 
world."  We  can  scarce  doubt  from  the  context  that  they 
meant  the  Messiah,  for  so  great  was  their  enthusiasm  that 
they  proposed  among  themselves  to  take  Him  by  force  and 
make  Him  king,  (J< >hn  vi.  14,  15.)  Thus  the  effect  of  the 
miracle  was  to  confirm  them  in  their  false  Messianio  hopes ; 
for  they  interpreted  it  as  a  sign  and  pledge  of  the  highest 
temporal  prosperity  under  His  rule,  who  could  not  only 
heal  the  sick  of  all  their  diseases,  but  feed  five  thousand 
men  with  five  loaves  of  barley  bread.  Hence  He  must  im- 
mediately dismiss  them.  It  appears  from  Matthew  and 
Mark  that  He  sent  away  the  disciples  first,  perhaps  that  the 
excitement  of  the  multitude  might  not  seize  upon  them. 
That  they  were  unwilling  to  leave  Him,  and  that  He  was 
obliged  to  "  constrain  "  them  to  depart,  is  not  strange  if  we 
remember  that  they  knew  no  way  by  which  He  could  re- 
join them  but  by  a  long  walk  along  the  shore,  and  this  in 
the  solitude  and  darkness  of  the  night,  for  it  was  evening 
when  they  left  the  place.    (Compare  Matt.  xiv.  15  and  23, 


304  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD. 

where  both  evenings,  the  early  and  late,  are  distinguished.) 
Aside  from  their  reluctance  to  leave  Him  alone  at  such  an 
hour,  there  may  also  have  been  fear  upon  their  own  part  of 
crossing  the  lake  in  the  night,  remembering  their  great 
peril,  from  which  He  had  a  little  while  before  delivered 
them,  (Matt.  viii.  24.) 

After  His  disciples  had  departed,  the  Lord  proceeds  to 
dismiss  the  multitude,  perhaps  now  more  willing  to  leave 
Him.  that  they  saw  His  special  attendants  had  gone.  So 
soon  as  all  had  left  Him,  He  went  up  into  the  mountain 
alone  to  pray — the  second  instance  mentioned  of  a  night  so 
spent ;  the  first  being  the  night  prior  to  the  choice  of  apos- 
tles, (Luke  vi.  12,  13  ;)  and  both  mark  important  points  in 
His  life. 

The  details  of  the  voyage  of  the  disciples  in  their 
topographical  bearings,  have  been  already  considered,  and 
need  not  be  re-stated  here.  We  assume  that  the  place 
where  the  people  were  fed,  was  the  southern  angle  of  the 
plain  of  Butaiha,  where  the  mountains  meet  the  lake. 
From  this  point  the  apostles,  to  reach  Capernaum,  would 
pass  near  Bethsaida  at  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan ;  and  as 
Jesus,  proceeding  along  the  shore,  must  necessarily  pass 
through  it,  we  find  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  they  di- 
rected their  course  toward  it  with  the  design  of  stopping 
there,  and  taking  Him  with  them  into  the  boat  when  He 
should  arrive.  This  is  plainly  intimated  by  Mark  vi.  45 ; l 
and  is  wholly  consistent  with  John  vi.  17.  This  latter  pas- 
sage is  thus  translated  by  Alford :  "  They  were  making  for 
the  other  side  of  the  sea  in  the  direction  of  Capernaum." 
He  adds :  "It  would  appear  as  if  the  disciples  were  linger- 
ing along  shore,  with  the  expectation  of  taking  in  Jesus ; 
but  night  had  fallen  and  He  had  not  yet  come  to  them, 

1  See  Wieseler,  274,  note  1 ;  Newcome,  263.  "  They  were  to  make  Beth- 
saida  in  their  passage,  at  which  place  it  was  understood  that  Jesus  was  to 
meet  them  by  land,  then  embark  with  them." 


JESUS  JOINS  THE  DISCIPLES  ITPON  THE  SEA.  305 

and  the  sea  began  to  be  stormy."  "  The  great  wind  that 
blew  "  and  the  tossing  waves  made  all  their  efforts  to  reach 
Bethsaida  useless.  Nor  could  they  even  make  Capernaum. 
In  spite  of  all  their  endeavors,  they  were  driven  out  into 
the  middle  of  the  lake  and  southerly,  down  opposite  the 
plain  of  Gennesaret. 

Thomson,  (ii.  32,)  referring  to  this  night  voyage  of  the 
disciples,  says :  "  My  experience  in  this  region  enables  me 
to  sympathize  with  the  disciples  in  their  long  night's  con- 
test with  the  wind.  I  spent  a  night  in  that  Wady  Shu- 
kaiyif,  some  three  miles  up  it,  to  the  left  of  us.  The  sun 
bad  scarcely  set  when  the  wind  began  to  rush  down  toward 
the  lake,  and  it  continued  all  night  long  with  constantly  in- 
creasing violence,  so  that  when  we  reached  the  shore  next 
morning  the  face  of  the  lake  was  like  a  huge  boiling  cal- 
dron. The  wind  howled  down  every  wady,  from  the  north- 
east and  east,  with  such  fury  that  no  efforts  of  rowers  could 
have  brought  a  boat  to  shore  at  any  point  along  that 
coast.  In  a  wind  like  that  the  disciples  must  have  been 
driven  quite  across  to  Gennesaret,  as  we  know  they  were. 
We  subsequently  pitched  our  tents  at  the  shore,  and  re- 
mained for  three  days  and  nights  exposed  to  this  tremen- 
dous wind.  No  wonder  the  disciples  toiled  and  rowed 
hard  all  that  night,  and  how  natural  their  amazement  and 
terror  at  the  sight  of  Jesus  walking  on  the  waves.  The 
whole  lake,  as  we  had  it,  was  lashed  into  fury ;  the  waves 
repeatedly  rolled  up  to  our  tent  door,  tumbling  on  the 
ropes  with  such  violence  as  to  carry  away  the  tent  pins." 
The  width  of  the  sea  opposite  the  plain  of  Gennesaret  is 
about  six  miles  ;  and  the  disciples,  who  "  had  rowed  about 
five  and  twenty  or  thirty  furlongs  "  when  Jesus  met  them, 
were  thus  something  more  than  half  the  way  over.  As  this 
was  "  about  the  fourth  watch  of  the  night,"  (Mark  vi.  48,) 
or  from  3-6  a.  m.,  the  disciples  must  have  been  struggling 
against  the  wind  and  waves  some  eight  or  ten  hours. 


30fl  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

The  incident  respecting  Peter's  attempt  to  walk  on  the 
water  to  meet  Jesus,  is  mentioned  only  by  Matthew.  That 
after  he  had  been  rescued  they  entered  the  ship  is  expressly 
said  :  "  And  when  they  were  come  into  the  ship  the  wind 
ceased,"  (Matt.  xiv.  32.)  In  like  manner  Mark,  (vi  51  :) 
"  And  He  went  up  unto  them  into  the  ship  ;  and  the  wind 
ceased."  But  with  this  John's  narrative  has  been  thought 
by  some  to  be  in  contradiction,  (vi.  21 :)  "Then  they  will- 
ingly received  Him  into  the  ship,  rjStkov  ow  Aa/?«v  avrov  as 
to  ttXoiov  ;  and  immediately  the  ship  was  at  the  land  whither 
they  went."  It  is  said  that  the  disciples  willed  or  desired 
to  take  Him  into  the  ship  with  them,  but  did  not,  because 
the  ship  immediately  came  to  the  shore.1  Tholuck,  how- 
ever, defends  the  translation  of  Beza,  "  they  received  Him 
with  willingness,"  which  is  the  same  as  our  English  version." 
Some  deny  that  the  ship  came  to  the  shore  by  miracle,  but 
suppose  that  it  came  rapidly  in  comparison  with  the  earlier 
part  of  the  voyage,  the  wind  having  subsided  and  the  sea 
become  smooth,3  On  the  other  hand,  Luthardt,  and  we 
think  rightly,  regards  it  as  supernatural. 


April,  782.    a.  d.  29. 

The  people  of  Gennesaret,  so  soon  as  they  knew    Matt.  xiy.  34-36. 
that  Jesus  had  landed  upon  their  coasts,  bring  unto 
Him  their  sick,  who  are  healed  by  only  touching  the    Mark  vi.  53-56. 
hem  of  His  garment.    Those  whom  He  had  fed,  and    John  vi.  22-59. 
who  had  spent  the  night  upon  the  eastern  shore,  now 
returning  seek  Him  at  Capernaum,  whither  He  goes. 
In  answer  to  their  question  how  He  came  over  the  sea, 
He  discourses  to  them  concerning  the  bread  of  life. 
His  words  are  so  offensive  to  many  of  His  disciples    John  vi.  60-66. 

1  So  Meyer  in  loco ;  Bleek,  Beitrage,  28. 

a  Alford ;  see  Winer,  Gram.,  363 ;  Trench,  Mir.,  228,  note. 

>  Alford,  Tholuck. 


JESUS  IN  THE  LAND   OP  GENNESAEET.  307 

that  they  henceforth  forsake  Him.     The  Twelve  con-    John  vi.  67-71. 

tinue  with  Him,  but  He  declares  that  one  of  them  is  a 

devil. 

The  language  of  Matthew  and  of  Mark  is  so  express  in 
connecting  these  miracles  of  healing  with  the  return  after 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  that  there  is  no  room  for 
doubt  that  they  then  took  place.  It  is  not,  however,  neces- 
sary to  regard  their  statements  as  descriptive  of  an  activity 
confined  to  that  one  day,  but  rather  embracing  the  whole 
period  after  His  return  till  He  again  departed.  All  the 
accounts  of  this  period  indicate  that  He  had  now  come  to 
the  culminating  point  of  His  labors.  Never  was  His  popu- 
larity so  great,  and  never  His  mighty  power  so  marvellously 
displayed.  He  could  go  nowhere,  into  country,  or  village, 
or  city,  that  they  did  not  bring  the  sick  into  the  streets, 
that  they  might  at  least  touch  the  hem  of  His  garment ; 
"  and  as  many  as  touched  were  made  perfectly  whole." 
The  fact  that  the  men  of  Gennesaret  "  sent  out  into  all  that 
country  round  about,  and  brought  unto  Him  all  that  were 
diseased,"  (Matt.  xiv.  35,)  indicates  their  great  confidence 
in  His  ability  and  willingness  to  heal  all  that  should  be 
brought  to  Him  ;  and  perhaps  also  that,  according  to  His 
custom,  He  would  soon  depart  to  other  fields  of  labor. 

Of  those  who  had  been  present  among  the  five  thousand, 
some,  and  probably  many,  remained  in  the  villages  and  towns 
on  the  eastern  shore  during  the  night.  These,  knowing  that 
His  disciples  had  departed  the  evening  before  for  Caper- 
naum, and  left  Him  behind,  naturally  expected  to  find  Him 
in  the  morning  somewhere  on  that  side  of  the  lake.  Not 
finding  Him,  they  take  boats,  apparently  boats  that  had 
been  sent  over  by  the  boatmen  from  Tiberias  for  passen- 
gers, (John  vi.  23,)  and  go  to  Capernaum,  as  His  usual  resi- 
dence, to  find  Him.  As  He  had  landed  very  early  upon 
the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  for  it  was  about  the  fourth  watch 
when  He  met  the  disciples,  He  had  probably,  ere  their  ar- 


308  THE  LIFE   OP   OUE   LOED. 

rival,  reached  the  city.  The  discourse  concerning  the 
bread  of  life  was  spoken  in  the  synagogue  at  Capernaum, 
(John  vi.  59,)  and  most  probably  upon  the  Sabbath.  Still* 
no  certain  inference  can  be  drawn  from  this  mention  of  the 
synagogue,  as  it  was  used  for  teaching  upon  other  days 
than  the  Sabbath.1  Wieseler  (2 76)  makes  the  feeding  of  the 
five  thousand  to  have  been  on  the  14th  Nisan  or  16th  April,  at 
the  same  time  when  the  paschal  lamb  was  eaten  at  Jerusa- 
lem ;  and  this  day,  therefore,  was  the  15th  Nisan,  or  the  first 
feast  Sabbath.*  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  notice  of 
John,  (vi.  4,)  that  the  Passover  was  nigh,  which  implies  that 
an  interval  of  a  day  at  least,  if  not  of  days,  intervened. 

This  discourse  of  the  Lord  so  offended  many  of  His  dis- 
ciples that  from  this  time  they  walked  no  more  with  Him. 
The  answer  of  Peter  to  the  question  addressed  to  the 
Twelve,  "  Will  ye  also  go  away,"  marks  a  crisis  in  their 
relations  to  Him.  Now  for  the  first  time,  so  far  as  we 
know,  there  was  a  defection  among  His  disciples.  His 
teachings  were  too  hard  for  them,  even  when  confirmed 
by  such  great  miracles.  But  it  was  His  words,  not  His 
works,  that  held  the  Twelve  faithful.  «4Thou  hast  the 
words  of  eternal  life,"  said  Peter,  The  right  reading  of 
the  confession  of  Peter  immediately  following  is,  according 
to  Teschendorf,'  "  And  we  believe  and  are  sure  that  thou 
art  the  Holy  One  of  God."  This  confession  is  to  be  distin- 
guished from  that  made  later,  (see  Matt.  xvi.  16,)  which 
displays  a  higher  knowledge  of  the  mystery  of  the  Lord'a 
person. 

Summer,  782.     a.  d.  29. 

Whilst  still  at  Capernaum,  some  of  the  scribes  and  Matt.  xv.  1-20. 
Pharisees,  who  had  come  from  Jerusalem,  see  His  dis-  Mark  vii.  1-23. 
ciples  eating  with    unwashed  hands,   and  find  fault. 

1  Winer,  ii.  549.  *  So  Teschendorf,  xxiiii. 

9  So  also  Meyer  and  Alford ;  Ellicott  undecided. 


PHAEISEES   AND   SCRIBES  FROM  JERUSALEM.  309 

This  leads  to  a  discussion  of  Pharisaic  traditions,  and 
sharp  reproofs  of  their  hypocrisy.     Leaving  Caperna- 
um, He  goes  with  the  Twelve  into  the  coasts  of  Tyre    Matt.  xv.  21-28. 
and  Sidon,  avoiding  all  publicity.     But  He  could  not  be    Mark  viL  24-30. 
bid ;  and  a  woman  of  that  region  coming  to  Him  with 
urgent  request,  He  heals  her  daughter.    From  thence 
He  departs  to  the  region  of  Decapolis,  where  he  heals    Matt.  xv.  29-39. 
many,  and  one  with  an  impediment  in  his  speech,  and    Mark  vii.  31-37. 
afterward  feeds  a  multitude  of   4,000  persons.      Re-    Mark  viii.  1-10. 
the  sea  He  returns  to  Capernaum. 


How  long,  after  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  the  Lord 
continued  at  Capernaum  we  cannot  tell,  but  it  is  plain  that 
He  was  found  there  by  the  Pharisees  and  scribes  which  came 
down  from  Jerusalem.  That  this  was,  as  Wieseler  maintains,1 
upon  the  15th  Nisan,  the  day  when  he  supposes  the  discourse 
in  the  synagogue  to  have  been  delivered,  is  highly  improba- 
ble. It  is  not  likely  that  they  would  leave  Jerusalem  till 
the  Passover  was  fully  over.*  Much  earlier  in  the  Lord's 
ministry,  as  we  have  seen,  a  deputation  of  scribes  had  been 
sent  from  Jerusalem  to  watch  and  oppose  Him.  The  pres- 
ence of  this  new  deputation  may  be  ascribed  to  the  reports 
that  had  been  borne  to  that  city  by  the  pilgrims  going  to 
the  feast,  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  and  of  the  wish 
of  the  people  to  make  Him  king.  So  great  a  miracle,  and  its 
effect  on  the  popular  mind,  could  not  be  overlooked  ;  and 
they  hasten  to  counteract,  if  possible,  His  growing  influ- 
ence. Arriving  at  Capernaum,  and  watchful  to  seize  every 
possible  ground  of  accusation  against  Him,  they  notice  that 
some  of  His  disciples  did  not  wash  their  hands  in  the  pre- 
scribed manner  before  eating ;  a  sign  that  they  were  already 
in  some  degree  becoming  indifferent  to  Pharisaic  traditions. 
The  words  of  the  Lord  in  reply  to  the  Pharisees  are  full  of 
severity,  and  show  that  He  knew  that  they  were,  and  would 
continue  to  be,  His  enemies.    Now  for  the  first  time  Ho 

»  811,  note  1.  *  Tischendorf,  Greswell. 


310  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LORD. 

addresses  them  openly  as  hypocrites,  and  reproaches  them, 
that  they  set  aside  by  their  traditions  the  commandments 
of  God.  He  proceeds  to  address  the  people  upon  the  dis- 
tinction between  internal  and  external  defilement ;  and 
afterward,  when  He  was  alone  with  the  disciples,  He  ex- 
plains to  them  more  clearly  what  He  had  said. 

It  has  been  questioned  whether  the^Lord  went  merely 
to  the  borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  or  actually  crossed  them, 
(Matt.  xv.  21 ;  Mark  vii.  24.)1  Some  light  may  be  cast  on 
this  point  if  we  consider  His  motive  in  the  journey.  That 
it  was  not  to  teach  publicly  seems  plain  from  Mark's  words, 
(vii.  24,)  "  He  would  have  no  man  know  it."  He  desired 
that  His  arrival  should  be  kept  secret.  As  He  had  directed 
the  Twelve,  when  upon  their  mission,  not  to  "  go  into  the 
way  of  the  Gentiles"  to  preach,  it  is  not  probable  that  He 
would  now  do  so.  Nor  is  there  any  mention  of  teaching 
or  healing,  except  in  the  case  of  the  woman  and  her  daugh- 
ter. His  motive  in  this  journey  obviously  was  to  find  se- 
clusion and  rest,  which  He  had  sought,  but  in  vain,  to  find 
on  the  east  side  of  the  lake ;  and  could  not  find  in  Caper- 
naum. He  hoped  on  the  remote  frontiers  of  Galilee  to 
escape  for  a  time  popular  attention,  and  to  be  hid  from  the 
crowds  that  followed  Him.  We  see  no  evidence  that  any 
fear  of  the  hostility  of  Herod  or  of  the  Pharisees  actuated 
Him.*  It  is  for  the  Twelve  that  He  seeks  a  temporary 
retirement,  and  to  them  will  He  address  His  teachings. 

It  would  not  then  be  inconsistent  with  His  purpose  that 
He  should  enter  the  heathen  provinces  of  Tyre  and  Sidon. 
Here  at  least  He  may  obtain  a  little  interval  of  repose. 

1  In  favor  of  the  latter,  Alford,  Alexander,  Bleek,  De  Wette,  Greswell ;  of 
the  former,  Stier  and  Meyer,  who  refer  to  Matt.  xv.  22,  as  showing  that  the 
Phoenician  woman  came  out  of  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  to  meet  Jesus,  so 
that  lie  was  not  within  them. 

a  Greswell,  (ii.  354,)  who  thinks  His  motive  in  this  journey  was  conceal- 
ment, makes  the  final  end  of  this  concealment  to  escape  the  observation  of 
His  pertinacious  enemies,  the  scribes  and  Pharisees, 


JESUS   AT  TYEE  AND   SIDON.  311 

But  He  cannot  be  hid,  and  after  healing  the  daughter  of 
the  Syrophenician  woman  in  answer  to  her  importunity, 
He  is  compelled  to  leave  that  region,  and  directs  His  steps 
to  Decapolis.  The  route  He  followed  is  uncertain.  It  is 
said  by  Mark,  (vii.  31  :)  "  And  again  departing  from  the 
coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  He  came  unto  the  Sea  of  Galilee 
through  the  midst  of  the  coasts  of  Decapolis."  "  As  most 
of  the  cities  of  the  Decapolis  were  situated  near  the  valley 
of  the  Jordan,  south  of  the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  it  is  not  im- 
probable that  our  Lord,  having  gone  to  the  east  of  Phoe- 
nicia through  Upper  Galilee,  returned  thence,  by  way  of 
Lower  Galilee  through  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  to  Bethshean, 
(Scythopolis,)  the  only  city  of  Decapolis  which  is  to  the 
west  of  Jordan.  Here  He  would  cross  the  river,  perhaps 
at  the  bridge  now  called  Jisr  Majumah,  then  possibly  make 
a  circuit  about  the  district  of  Pella  and  Philadelphia  to  the 
south,  about  Gerasa  to  the  east,  and  Gadara,  Dios,  and 
Hippo  to  the  north.  Thus  He  would  c  come  unto  the  Sea 
of  Galilee  through  the  midst  of  the  coasts  of  Decapolis.' " l 
But  according  to  the  reading  of  Teschendorf,*  "  departing 
from  the  coasts  of  Tyre  He  came  through  Sidon  to  the  Sea 
of  Galilee,"  &a  SioWos ;  He  went  therefore  northward  from 
Tyre,  and,  passing  through  Sidon,  probably  proceeded 
along  the  Phoenician  border  line  to  the  Jordan,  near  Dan, 
(Laish,)  and  journeying  along  its  eastern  bank  came  to  De- 
capolis. He  may  thus  have  visited  Csesarea  Philippi,  and 
the  province  of  Herod  Philip,  although  no  special  mention 
is  made  of  it.  "  He  went  first  northward  (perhaps  for  the 
same  reason  of  privacy  as  before)  through  Sidon,  then 
crossed  the  Jordan,  and  so  approached  the  lake  on  its  east 
side." " 

What  part  of  Decapolis  the  Lord  visited  is  not  men- 
tioned by  any  of  the  Evangelists.     Under  this  title  were 

1  G.  Williams  in  "  The  Messiah,"  268,  note. 

*  So  Meyer  and  Alford.  *  Alford ;  see  Lichtenstein,  284. 


312  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

included  ten  cities,  eight  or  nine  of  which  were  on  the  east 
side  of  the  Jordan,  and  east  or  southeast  of  the  Sea  of 
Galilee.  It  is  spoken  of  by  Joseph  us  as  a  well-known  terri- 
torial designation,  embracing  towns  and  villages.  After 
Syria  had  been  conquered  by  the  Romans,  ten  cities  seem, 
on  some  grounds  not  well  known,  to  have  been  placed  un- 
der certain  peculiar  municipal  arrangements,  and  brought 
directly  under  Roman  rule.  It  is  probable  that  their  pop- 
ulation was  chiefly  heathen.  The  names  of  the  ten  cities 
are  differently  given.  To  the  original  ten  cities  others  were 
probably  added,  though  at  no  time  do  they  seem  to  have 
constituted  a  distinct  province.1 

It  is  impossible  to  tell  where  the  healing  of  the  deaf 
man  with  an  impediment  in  his  speech,  took  place,  (Mark 
vii.  32.)  If  it  was  one  of  the  cures  mentioned  by  Matthew, 
(xv.  29-31,)  it  was  near  the  sea;  but  from  the  fact  that 
Jesus  enjoined  silence  upon  the  deaf  man  and  his  friends, 
we  infer  that  it  was  wrought  before  He  came  to  the  shore 
of  the  lake.  The  injunction  of  silence  was  not  heeded : 
"  The  more  He  charged  them,  so  much  the  more  a  great 
deal  they  published  it."  The  effect  of  this  was,  as  related 
by  Matthew,  a  great  gathering  to  Him  of  "  the  lame,  blind, 
dumb,  maimed,  and  many  others,"  whom  He  healed.  Both 
Matthew  and  Mark  speak  of  the  wonder  and  astonishment 
of  the  multitude  as  they  saw  these  healings,  as  if  they  now 
saw  them  for  the  first  time.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that 
Jesus  had  not  visited  this  region  at  all,  except  for  the  few 
hours  when  He  healed  the  demoniacs  of  Gergesa,  and  after- 
ward when  He  fed  the  five  thousand  ;  and  the  great  body 
of  the  people  now  saw  Him  for  the  first  time.  The  ex- 
pression, (Matt.  xv.  31,)  "  they  glorified  the  God  of  Israel," 
may  indicate  that  part  of  the  multitude  were  heathen,  and 
now  glorified  Jehovah  in  contrast  with  their  own  deities  ; 
or  it  may  have  reference  to  the  Jews  as  dwelling  among 

«  See  Winer,  i.  263  :  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible,  i.  419. 


FEEDING   OF  THE  FOUR  THOUSAND.  313 

the  heathen,  who  saw  in  these  miracles  new  proofs  of  the 
power  of  their  God,  before  whom  all  others  were  but  idols. 

Three  days  this  great  concourse  of  people  continued 
with  the  Lord,  beholding  His  works,  and  listening  to  His 
words.  The  place  where  they  were  assembled  was,  beyond 
question,  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake,  and  some  suppose  at 
the  same  place  where  He  had  fed  the  five  thousand.1  Mat- 
thew (xv.  29)  relates  that  "He  came  nigh  unto  the  Sea  of 
Galilee,  and  went  up  into  a  mountain  and  sat  down  there." 
The  use  of  the  article,  to  opos,  "  the  mountain,"  does  not 
determine  the  spot,  as  it  may  be  used  to  denote  the  high 
land  in  distinction  from  the  lake  shore.  It  seems,  however, 
more  probable  that  it  was  at  some  point  near  the  south  end 
of  the  lake,  as  several  cities  of  the  Decapolis  were  in  that 
v i a nity.  Ellicott  *  suggests  that  its  site  may  have  been  "  the 
high  ground  "  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  ravine  nearly  op- 
posite to  Magdala,  which  is  now  called  "  Wady  Semak." 
Whilst  there  are  several  points  of  resemblance  between  this 
miracle  and  that  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  there 
are  many  of  difference :  as  the  number  of  persons  fed,  the 
quantity  of  food,  the  quantity  of  fragments  gathered  up, 
Mm  time  the  multitude  had  been  with  Jesus,  and  the 
i  v»  nN  both  preceding  and  following  the  miracle.  It  is 
probable  that  many  of  the  four  thousand  were  heathen,  or 
those  who  had  come  from  the  east  side  of  the  sea,  whilst 
most  of  the  five  thousand  seem  to  have  followed  Him 
from  the  western  shore.' 

After  sending  away  the  multitudes,  He  took  ship,  per- 
haps the  ship  kept  specially  for  His  use,  and  crossed  the 
sea.  He  came,  according  to  Matthew,  (xv.  39,)  "  into  the 
coasts  of  Magdala  ;"*  according  to  Mark,  (viii.  10,)  "  into 
the  parts  of  Dalmanutha."    Magdala  is  generally  identified 

»  So  Trench,  Mir.,  2S5 ;  Greswell,  ii.  857. 
«  221,  note  1.  «  Trench,  Mir.,  286. 

*  For  Magdala  in  the  received  text,  Teschendorf  and  Alford  substitute 
14 


314  THE  LIFE  OP  OUE  LORD. 

with  El  Mejdel,  a  miserable  village  on  the  south  side  of  the 
plain  of  Gennesaret,  near  the  lake.1  Dalmanutha  is  gener- 
ally supposed  to  have  been  a  small  town  or  village  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Magdala,  perhaps  in  its  territory,  and  upon 
the  shore.  Porter  places  it  about  a  mile  south  of  Magdala, 
by  the  fountain  Ain-el-Barideh.  Thomson  (ii.  60)  speaks  of  a 
Dalhamia,  or  Dalmamia,  on  the  east  side  of  the  Jordan,  a  lit- 
tle below  its  exit  from  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  which  he  supposes 
may  be  intended.    The  matter  is  in  itself  unimportant. 


Summer,  782.    a.d.  29 

So  soon  as  Jesus  returns  to  Capernaum,  the  Phari-    Matt.  xvi.  1-4. 
sees  and  Sadducees  begin  to  tempt  Him  by  asking  a    Makk  viii.  11, 12. 
sign  from  Heaven.     He  reproves  their  hypocrisy,  and 
declares  that  no  sign  should  be  given  them  but  the  sign 
of  the  prophet  Jonas.    Leaving  them,  He  enters  a  ship,     Matt.  xvi.  5-13. 
and  again  departs  across  the  lake  toward  Bethsaida.    Mark  viii.  13-21. 
Upon  the  way  He  discourses  to  the  disciples  respecting 
the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees.    Arriving  at  Bethsaida,  He    Mark  viii.  22-26. 
heals  a  blind  man  and  sends  him  privately  home. 

It  is  not  expressly  said  that  Jesus  went  from  Magdala 
or  Dalmanutha  to  Capernaum,  and  it  is  possible  that  He 
may  have  met  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  at  either  of  the 
former  places ;  yet  as  the  latter  city  was  His  home,  to  which 
He  returned  after  all  His  circuits,  and  was  but  few  miles 
from  Magdala,  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  He  went 
thither  as  usual.  Here,  also,  He  would  more  probably 
meet  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  for  this  meeting  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  accidental,  but  premeditated  on  their 
part.  It  is  the  first  time  the  latter  are  named  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  former,  as  acting  unitedly  in  opposition  to 

Magadan.    Magdala  is  retained  by  Meyer.    Of  Magadan,  if  distinct  from 
Magdala,  nothing  is  known. 

1  Rob.  ii.,  397 ;  Porter,  ii.  43L    See,  contra,  Norton,  notes,  153. 


THE  PHARISEES   SEEK  A  SIGN   FROM   HEAVEN.         315 

Him.  Apparently  as  a  party,  the  Sadducees  had  up  to 
this  time  looked  upon  Him  with  indifference  if  not  con- 
tempt. But  as  His  teachings  began  to  expose  their  errors, 
their  hostility  was  aroused ;  and  from  this  time  they  seem 
to  have  acted  in  unison  with  the  Pharisees  against  Him. 

The  peculiarity  of  the  sign  which  His  enemies  now 
sought  from  Him,  was  that  it  should  be  from  Heaven,  or 
something  visible  in  the  heavens ;  perhaps  some  change  in 
the  sun  or  moon,  or  a  meteor,  or  fire,  or  thunder  and 
lightning.  Denouncing  them  as  hypocrites,  who  could  dis- 
cern the  face  of  the  sky,  but  could  not  discern  the  signs 
of  the  times,  He  refuses  to  give  them  any  other  sign  than 
one  too  late  to  profit  them,  His  own  resurrection. 

The  departure  from  Capernaum  across  the  sea  seems  to 
have  followed  close  upon  this  temptation  of  the  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees.  That  the  Lord  was  greatly  grieved  at  this 
new  instance  of  their  unbelief,  appears  from  Mark  viii.  1 2, 
where  it  is  said :  "  He  sighed  deeply  in  His  spirit."  Alex- 
ander also  observes  that  the  expression,  (v.  13,)  "  'He  left 
them,'  suggests  the  idea  of  abandonment,  letting  them 
alone,  leaving  them  to  themselves,  giving  them  up  to  hope- 
less unbelief."  According  to  Matthew,  He  admonishes  His 
disciples  to  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  Saddu- 
cees; according  to  Mark,  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and 
of  Herod.  This  slight  discrepancy  is  generally  explained  by 
saying  that  Herod  was  a  Sadducee.  This  is  in  itself  prob- 
able, for  none  of  the  Herodian  princes  seem  to  have  im- 
bibed the  true  Jewish  spirit;  and  though  fearing  the  Phari- 
sees, because  of  their  great  influence  over  the  people,  yet 
favored  the  Sadducees,  and  gave  office  so  far  as  possible  to 
men  of  that  party.  But  it  may  be  that  the  Lord  speaks 
of  hypocrisy  in  general  as  leaven,  and  so  the  same  in  what- 
soever person  or  party  it  appeared. 

If  Bethsaida  were,  as  we  suppose,  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Jordan,  its  position  would  correspond  with  all  the  condi- 


316 


THE   LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 


tions  of  the  present  narrative.  From  this  point  He  could 
easily  reach  the  town  of  Caesarea  Philippi.  Although  we 
know  from  the  Lord's  own  words  (Matt.  xi.  21)  that  He 
had  wrought  many  mighty  works  in  Bethsaida,  yet  the 
healing  of  the  blind  man  is  the  only  one  recorded,  except 
the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  which  took  place  upon  its 
territory.  For  some  reason  not  stated,  (Mark  viii.  23,)  the 
blind  man  was  healed  without  the  city.  There  are  many 
points  of  resemblance  between  this  miracle  and  that  of  the 
healing  of  the  deaf  man  with  an  impediment  in  his  speech, 
(Mark  vii.  32-37.)  In  both  the  Lord  is  besought  to  touch 
them;  He  takes  them  aside  from  the  people;  He  uses 
spittle  ;  He  enjoins  silence. 


Summer,  782.     a.d.  29. 

Leaving  Bethsaida,  He  goes  with  His  disciples  to    Mark  viii.  27-33. 
Caesarea  Philippi.   Whilst  upon  the  way,  He  asked  them    Matt.  xvi.  13-23. 
"  whom  do  men  say  that  I  am?  "    He  then  asks  them    Luke  ix.  18-22. 
their  own  opinion  of  Him,  and  Peter  replies  that  He  is 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  This  truth  He  com* 
mands  them  to  tell  to  no  one ;  and  now  begins  to  teach 
them  respecting  His  approaching  rejection  by  the  Jews, 
His  death,  and  resurrection  after  three  days.      Peter 
would  rebuke  Him  for  these  words,  but  is  himself  re- 
buked.   Jesus  afterward  addresses  the  disciples  and    Mark  viii.  84-38. 
the  people,  and  teaches  them  what  is  involved  in  follow-    Matt.  xvi.  24-28. 
ing  Him,  and  speaks  of  the  rewards  He  would  give  to    Luke  ix.  23-27. 
all  when  He  should  come  again  in  the  glory  of  His 
Father.   He  adds,  that  some  standing  before  Him  should    Mark  ix.  1-10. 
see  Him  come  in  the  glory  of  His  kingdom.     Six  days    Matt.  xvii.  1-9. 
after  He  goes  to  a  high  mountain,  taking  with  Him    Lukk  ix.  28-86. 
Peter,  James,  and  John,  and  is   transfigured  before 
them. 

It  is  much  disputed  whether  the  journey  to  Csesarea 
Philippi,  and  the  Transfiguration,  followed  immediately  upon 
the  miracle  at  Bethsaida,  or  whether  an  interval  elapsed 


TIME   OF  THE  TRANSFIGURATION.  317 

daring  which  He  may  have  journeyed  in  other  directions. 
The  connection  of  the  narratives  does  not  decide  it.  It  is 
said  by  Matthew  (xvi.  13)  that,  "When  Jesus  came  into 
the  coasts  of  Caesarea  Philippi,  He  asked  His  disciples,"  &c. 
This  leaves  the  time  of  His  coming  indefinite.  Mark  (viii. 
27)  says :  "  And  Jesus  went  out — t$r]\$ev — and  His  disciples 
into  the  towns  of  Caesarea  Philippi."  The  phrase  "  went 
out,"  naturally,  though  not  necessarily,  refers  to  a  depart- 
ure from  the  place  before  mentioned,  which  was  Beth- 
saida.  "  Neither  Evangelist  assigns  the  date  of  this  trans- 
action, even  by  connecting  it  expressly  with  the  previous 
context  as  immediately  successive.  Into  the  villages  or 
towns  dependent  upon  this  important  city,  Jesus  came  with 
His  disciples ;  when  or  whence  is  not  recorded.  '  Went  out' 
throws  no  light  upon  this  point,  as  it  may  refer  to  any 
going  forth  for  any  purpose,  even  from  a  private  house, 
upon  a  journey,  or  from  Capernaum  as  the  centre  of  His 
operations  on  a  new  official  circuit."  ' 

If,  then,  the  Evangelists  do  not  decide  the  point  by 
their  language,  it  must  be  decided  by  other  considerations. 
It  is  said  on  the  one  side,  that  the  Transfiguration  most  fit- 
tingly finds  its  place  at  the  end  of  the  Lord's  Galilean  min- 
istry, and  therefore  at  a  later  period.  As  at  His  baptism, 
when  about  to  begin  His  work,  there  was  a  voice  from 
heaven,  saying :  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased  ; "  so  now  at  its  close  the  Father  gives  a  like 
testimony.*  The  announcement,  also,  (Matt.  xvi.  21,) 
that  He  must  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  die,  implies  that  His 
next  journey  thither  would  be  His  last.  Some,  therefore, 
as  Lichtenstein,  place  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  to  the  feast 
of  Tabernacles  (John  vii.  2)  aftei;  the  miracle  at  Bethsaida, 

1  Alexander  in  loco.  8ee  the  same  word,  v.  11.  "  The  Pharisees  came 
forth,"  whether  from  their  homes,  or  from  the  surrounding  villages,  or  from 
Capernaum,  is  matter  of  conjecture. 

*  Hofmann  in  Lichtenstein,  307. 


318  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

and  before  the  journey  to  the  coasts  of  Philippi.  Stier, 
who  makes  Jesus  to  have  returned  to  Galilee  after  the  feast 
of  Dedication,  (John  x.  22,)  places  the  Transfiguration  after 
that  return.  But  on  the  other  side,  the  natural  inference, 
as  we  have  seen  from  the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Mark, 
is  that  the  Lord  journeyed  directly  from  Bethsaida  toward 
Caesarea  Philippi,  and  that  there  was  no  return  to  Caper- 
naum or  visit  to  Jerusalem  before  the  Transfiguration.1 

It  deserves,  however,  to  be  noticed  that  the  Transfigu- 
ration was,  in  any  event,  very  near  the  close  of  the  Lord's 
ministry  in  Galilee.  His  labors  after  this,  as  indeed  for 
some  time  previous,  seem  to  have  been  devoted  chiefly  to 
His  disciples,  till  He  commenced  His  last  journey,  when 
they  again  assumed  a  public  character. 

From  the  direction  given  to  the  blind  man  at  Bethsaida, 
not  to  speak  of  his  cure,  as  well  as  from  the  statement 
(Mark  ix.  30)  that  He  desired  to  pass  secretly  through  Gali- 
lee after  the  Transfiguration,  we  infer  that  this  circuit,  like 
the  preceding,  was  not  so  much  to  teach  the  people  at 
large  as  to  escape  the  crowds  that  followed  Him,  and  to 
find  opportunity  to  teach  His  disciples.' 

The  apostles,  in  their  answer  to  His  question,  "  Whom 
do  men  say  that  I  am  ?  "  give  the  opinions  most  current 
among  the  people  generally  in  Galilee.  It  is  not  certain 
whether  He  was,  through  ignorance,  confounded  with  John 
the  Baptist,  as  if  the  latter  were  still  living,  or  was  thought 
to  be  the  Baptist  raised  from  the  dead.  The  latter  is  most 
probable,  and  perhaps  reference  may  be  made  to  the  opin- 
ion of  Herod  and  his  party.  How  intimate  was  the  connec- 
tion in  the  Jewish  mind  between  the  resurrection,  and  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  and  the  advent  of  the  Christ,  is  shown 

1  So  most  harmonists,  Teschendorf,  Robinson,  Krafft,  Friedlieb,  Gres- 
well,  Newcome. 

■  From  Mark  viii.  34,  Ellicott  infers  that  His  object  was  public  teaching 
and  preaching. 


THE  CONFESSION   OP  PETER.  319 

by  Lightfoot,  (on  John  i.  25  :)  "  The  Jews  believed  that  at 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah  the  prophets  were  to  rise  again. 
The  nearer  still  the  4  kingdom  of  heaven  ■  came,  by  so  much 
the  more  did  they  dream  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
prophets." 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  no  important  part  of  the  people 
seem  to  have  regarded  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  or  else  it  would 
have  been  mentioned  by  the  apostles.  It  is  apparent  that 
He  was  regarded  rather  as  a  forerunner  of  the  Messiah  than 
as  the  Messiah  Himself,  though  public  sentiment  may  have 
changed  from  time  to  time  in  regard  to  His  Messianic 
claims.1  On  the  one  hand,  He  had  been  pointed  out  as  the 
Messiah  by  John,  and  His  mighty  works  manifestly  proved 
His  divine  commission ;  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  He  did 
not  openly  avow  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  His  whole 
course  of  conduct  was  in  striking  contrast  to  their  Messi- 
anic expectations.  Whilst  a  few  here  and  there  said,  "  He 
is  the  Christ,"  the  general  voice  was  that  He  was  but  a  fore- 
runner. After  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand,  there  was 
a  desire  to  make  Him  king ;  but  this  docs  not  show  any 
real  belief  in  His  Messiahship.  It  was  the  natural  effect  of 
so  stupendous  a  miracle  upon  the  restless  Jewish  mind, 
eager  to  cast  off  the  Roman  and  Idumean  yoke ;  and  the 
next  day  many  of  His  disciples,  and  perhaps  those  most 
zealous  to  make  Him  a  king,  repelled  by  His  words,  "  went 
back  and  walked  no  more  with  Him."  This  confession 
of  Peter,  which  was  that  of  all  the  apostles,  was  there- 
fore a  great  turning  point  in  their  history.  To  others 
He  was  only  the  Baptist,  or  Elias,  or  one  of  the  prophets ; 
to  them  *  He  was  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 
This  confession  involves  much  more  than  that  at  Caper- 
naum a  little  earlier,  (John  vi.  69.)  The  latter  was  but  an 
expression  of  their  belief  that  "  He  was  the  Holy  One  of 

»  Lango  on  Matt.  ivi.  14. 


320  THE  LIFE  OP   OUE  LORD. 

God." l  "  This,"  says  Alford,  "  brings  out  both  the  human 
and  the  Divine  nature  of  the  Lord."  This  mystery  of  the 
Lord's  person  as  both  Divine  and  human,  was  something 
not  to  be  known  through  any  exercise  of  the  understanding. 
If  known,  it  must  be  through  the  revelation  of  God.  That 
Peter  should  have  discerned  it,  Jesus  thus  ascribes  imme- 
diately to  the  revelation  of  His  Father  in  heaven,  (Matt, 
xvi.  17.) 

This  truth,  so  far  surpassing  all  the  common  Jewish 
conceptions  of  the  Messiah,  of  the  united  Divinity  and  hu- 
manity of  the  Lord,  being  known  and  confessed,  Jesus  could 
begin  to  open  to  them  other  truths  till  this  time  concealed. 
Now  He  could  teach  them  that  His  first  work  in  the  flesh 
was  to  suffer;  that  He  must  be  rejected  by  the  Jews  and 
be  put  to  death ;  that  He  must  rise  from  the  dead,  and  af- 
terward establish  His  kingdom.  These  truths,  so  new  and 
strange  to  the  disciples,  so  foreign  to  all  their  modes  of 
thinking,  they  could  not  for  a  long  time  comprehend.  The 
very  fact  of  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  made  it  still  more  incom- 
prehensible how  He  could  suffer  and  die,  nor  could  the 
plainest  words  of  the  Lord  make  it  intelligible.  How  re- 
pugnant to  their  feelings  was  the  announcement  of  His  suf- 
ferings, is  graphically  shown  in  the  language  of  the  impetu- 
ous Peter,  "  Be  it  far  from  thee,  Lord :  this  shall  not  be 
unto  thee  : "  language  which  brought  upon  him  the  sever- 
est rebuke. 

From  this  time  the  teaching  of  Jesus  to  His  disciples, 
and  also  to  the  people  at  large,  (see  Mark  viii.  34 ;  Luke  ix. 
23,)  assumed  a  new  character.  Gradually,  as  they  were 
able  to  bear  it,  He  showed  them  how  the  great  purpose  of 
God  in  the  Messiah  must  be  effected  through  His  death, 
and  how  His  sufferings  had  been  foretold  by  the  prophets. 
So  far  from  establishing  any  earthly  kingdom,  in  which 

1  Reading  approved  by  Teschendorf,  Alford,  Meyer. 


OBJECT  OP  THE  TRANSFIGURATION.  321 

they  should  have  distinguished  places,  He  must  be  put  to 
a  most  ignominious  death,  and  all  who  received  Him  as  the 
Messiah,  should  do  it  at  the  peril  of  their  lives.  Yet,  as  a 
counterpoise  to  the  gloomy  picture,  He  speaks  of  an  hour 
when  He  would  come  again,  and  then  every  disciple  should 
have  His  reward.  Thus  He  confirmed  to  them  the  great 
fact  that  He  was  to  establish  a  kingdom  in  power  and 
glory.  To  prevent  the  disciples  from  seizing  upon  this 
fact,  and  indulging  in  dreams  of  a  reign  corresponding  to 
that  of  earthly  kings,  the  Lord  was  pleased  to  show  certain 
of  the  apostles,  by  a  momentary  transfiguration  of  His 
person,  the  supernatural  character  of  His  kingdom,  and  into 
what  new  and  higher  conditions  of  being  both  He  and  they 
must  be  brought  ere  it  could  come.  The  promise  that 
some  then  standing  before  Him  should  not  taste  death  till 
they  had  seen  "  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  His  kingdom," 
(Matt.  xvi.  28,)  or  had  seen  "  the  kingdom  of  God  come 
with  power,"  (Mark  ix.  1,)  was  fulfilled  when,  after  six 
days,  He  took  Peter,  James,  and  John  into  a  high  moun- 
tain apart,  and  was  transfigured  before  them.  These  apos- 
tles now  saw  Him  as  He  should  appear  when,  having  risen 
from  the  dead,  and  glorified,  He  should  come  again  from 
heaven  to  take  His  great  power  and  to  reign.  They  saw  in 
the  ineffable  glory  of  His  person,  and  the  brightness  around 
them,  a  foreshadowing  of  the  kingdom  of  God  as  it  should 
come  with  power ;  and  were  for  a  moment  "  eye-witnesses 
of  His  majesty,"  (2  Peter  i.  16.)  Many  errors  still  remained 
to  be  removed  from  their  minds,  especially  respecting  the 
time  of  its  establishment,  (Acts  i.  6,)  but  the  great  fact  of 
its  supernatural  character  they  could  not  mistake.  Hence- 
forth the  phrase  "  kingdom  of  God"  had  to  these  apostles 
a  significance  which  it  probably  had  not  had  to  any  of  the 
prophets,  and  certainly  had  not  to  any  of  the  Rabbis  or 
priests. 

The  three  apostles  were  commanded  to  tell  no  one  of 
14* 


322  THE  LIFE  OP  OUB  LORD. 

the  vision  till  Jesus  had  risen  from  the  dead.  It  therefore 
remained  for  a  considerable  period  unknown  to  the  other 
apostles  and  disciples.  It  was  natural  that  they  should 
question  one  with  another,  as  they  descended  the  mount, 
what  the  rising  from  the  dead  should  mean,  (Mark  ix.  10.) 
They  had  just  seen  the  Lord  transfigured.  He  had  not 
died,  yet  had  His  body  been  invested  with  heavenly  glory. 
It  was  not  then  necessary  to  die  and  to  rise  again  in  order 
to  be  glorified.  What,  then,  should  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  which  He  had  spoken  mean?  Not  a  literal 
death  and  resurrection,  but  a  spiritual  death — some  act  of 
suffering,  or  self-sacrifice,  upon  which  supernatural  glory 
should  follow.  And  thus  the  resurrection  from  the  dead, 
as  a  preliminary  to  the  kingdom,  became  still  more  incom- 
prehensible. 

The  statements  of  the  Evangelists  do  not  enable  us  to 
decide  where  the  Transfiguration  took  place.  Matthew  and 
Mark  speak  of  it  as  "  a  high  mountain ;"  Luke  as  "  the 
mountain,"  to  opos.  A  tradition,  dating  back  to  the  fourth 
century,  gives  Tabor  as  the  site.  So  generally  received  for 
many  centuries  was  this  tradition,  that  Lightfoot  (Mark 
ix.  2)  says :  "  I  know  it  will  be  laughed  at  if  I  should  doubt 
whether  Christ  was  transfigured  on  Mount  Tabor,  for  who 
ever  doubted  of  this  thing."  According  to  Robinson  (ii. 
358)  the  first  notice  of  Tabor  as  the  place  of  the  Transfigu- 
ration is  as  a  passing  remark  by  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and 
afterward  by  Jerome.  Before  the  close  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury three  churches  were  builded  there,  and  afterward  a 
monastery  was  founded.  Arculf,  a.  d.  700,1  says :  "  At  the 
top  is  a  pleasant  and  extensive  meadow  surrounded  by  a 
thick  wood,  and  in  the  middle  of  the  meadow  a  great  mon- 
astery with  numerous  cells  of  monks.  There  are  also  three 
handsome  churches,  according  to  the  number  of  taberna- 

>  Early  Travels,  9. 


MOUNT  OP  TRANSFIGITRATTON.  323 

cles  described  by  Peter."  Robinson  and  Stanley  think  it 
conclusive  against  this  tradition,  that  at  the  time  of  the 
Transfiguration  "  the  summit  of  Tabor  was  occupied  by  a 
fortified  city."  Thomson,  however,  (ii.  139,)  does  not  re- 
gard this  as  presenting  any  difficulty.  "  There  are  many 
secluded  or  densely  wooded  terraces  on  the  north  and 
northeast  sides,  admirably  adapted  to  the  scenes  of  the 
Transfiguration.  After  all  that  the  critics  have  advanced 
against  the  current  tradition,  I  am  not  fully  convinced." 
Admitting  that  much  may  be  said  in  favor  of  Mount  Tabor 
as  u  the  high  mountain"  of  the  Evangelists,  still  their  nar- 
ratives lead  us  to  place  this  event  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Cffisarea  Philippi  rather  than  on  the  west  of  the  lake,  and 
so  near  Capernaum.  "  The  Evangelists,"  says  Lightfoot, 
"  intimate  no  change  from  place  to  place."  The  expression 
of  Mark,  (ix.  30,)  that  "departing  thence  He  passed  through 
Galilee,"  would  imply  that  He  was  not  then  in  Galilee. 
We  are  therefore  made  to  look  for  some  mountain  in  the 
vicinity  of  CaBsarea,  and  Mount  Hermon  at  once  rises  before 
us.1  "  Standing  amid  the  ruins  of  Caesarea  we  do  not  need 
to  ask  what  that  'high  mountain'  is.  The  lofty  ridge  of 
Hermon  rises  over  us,  and  probably  on  one  or  other  of 
those  wooded  peaks  above  us  that  wondrous  event  took 
place."" 

The  difference  in  the  computation  of  Matthew  and  Mark 
on  the  one  side,  who  say,  "  After  six  days  He  taketh  Peter, 
James,  and  John  into  a  high  mountain  apart,"  and  of  Luke, 
who  says,  "  About  an  eight  days  after  these  sayings,  He 
took,"  Ac,  is  easily  reconciled  if  we  suppose  that  the  latter 
included,  while  the  former  excluded,  both  the  day  on  which 
the  words  were  spoken,  and  the  day  of  the  Transfiguration. 
Some,  as  Meyer,  prefer  to  take  Luke's  phrase  "  about  an 
eight  days"  as  indefinite,  but  this  is  contrary  to  the  use  of 

>  Lightfoot,  Reland. 

•  Porter,  ii.  447  j  so  Stanley,  Lichtenstein,  Bitter. 


324  THE   LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD. 

wo-ci,  with  numerals  by  this  Evangelist.  The  six  days,  ac- 
cording to  Lange,  are  probably  to  be  counted  from  the  day 
of  Peter's  confession.  Others,  as  Lightfoot,  count  from  the 
day  the  words  of  Matt.  xvi.  28  were  spoken.  Not  improba- 
bly the  days  were  identical.  It  is  not  certain  at  what  pe- 
riod of  the  day  the  Transfiguration  took  place,  but  most 
probably  during  the  night,  or  at  the  early  dawn.  Dark- 
ness was  not  indeed,  as  some  have  supposed,  necessary  that 
the  glory  of  the  Lord's  person  might  be  plainly  visible,  for 
when  He  appeared  to  Paul,  (Acts  xxvi.  13,)  it  was  midday, 
yet  the  light  that  shone  around  Him  was  brighter  than  the 
sun.  Nor  does  the  fact  that  the  apostles  slept,  shorn  that 
it  was  night,  for  their  sleep  seems  to  have  been  not  so  much 
natural  sleep,  the  result  of  fatigue,  as  stupefaction  caused 
by  the  marvellous  apparition,  (Rev.  i.  1 7.)  Nor  does  the 
fact  that  He  was  at  that  time  engaged  in  prayer  (Luke  ix. 
29)  determine  it.  But  as  He  did  not  descend  from  the 
mount  till  the  day  following,  it  is  not  probable  that  He 
ascended  upon  one  day,  was  then  transfigured,  remained 
after  this  during  the  night,  and  the  next  day  returned  to 
the  disciples.  It  is  most  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
Lord  went  upon  the  mount  at  even,  that  He  was  transfig- 
ured at  the  early  dawn,  and  soon  after  descended. 


Summer,  782.     a.  d.  29. 

Descending  from  the  mount  Jesus  explains,  in  an-  Matt.  xvii.  10-13, 

swer  to  a  question  from  the  apostles,  how  Elias  must  Mark  ix.  11-13. 
be  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah.     At  the  foot  of  the 

mountain  they  meet  the  other  apostles  surrounded  by  Matt.  xvii.  14-21. 

a  multitude,  among  whom  were  scribes  questioning  Mark  ix.  14-29. 

with  them.    The  Lord  heals  a  lunatic  child,  whom  the  Ldke  ix.  37-42. 
apostles  had  not  been  able  to  heal. 

That  Elijah  must  personally  precede  the  Messiah,  was 
one  of  the  firmest  and  most  undoubted  convictions  of  the 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  AND  ELIJAH.  325 

Jews ;  and  the  fact  that  the  Baptist  denied  himself  to  be 
Elijah,  was  a  circumstance  that  went  far  to  discredit  his 
mission.  If  he  was  not  Elijah  then  Jesus  could  not  be  the 
Christ.  If  he  was  a  prophet,  and  so  all  the  people  regarded 
him,  it  by  no  means  followed  that  the  Messiah  must  imme- 
diately follow  him ;  for  there  might  be  many  prophets  who 
should  act  as  forerunners,  and  yet  Elijah  alone  should  pre- 
pare His  way.  As  we  have  seen,  most  of  the  people  seem 
to  have  regarded  Jesus  Himself  only  as  one  of  the  pro- 
phetic forerunners  of  the  Messiah.  Educated  in  the '  cur- 
rent belief  respecting  the  office  of  Elijah,  the  three  apostles 
could  not  reconcile  it  with  his  appearance  upon  the  mount. 
The  Lord  clears  up  this  great  difficulty  by  explaining  to 
them  the  truth,  so  strange,  that  there  should  be  two  comings 
of  the  Messiah,  and  so  two  forerunners.  Thus  the  mystery 
of  two  Elijahs  was  cleared  up  so  soon  as  the  mystery  of 
the  two  comings  was  known.  It  is  remarked  by  Alford : 
"  The  double  allusion  is  only  the  assertion  that  the  Elias 
(in  spirit  and  power)  who  foreran  our  Lord's  first  coming, 
was  a  partial  fulfilment  of  the  great  prophecy,  which  an- 
nounces the  real  Elias,  (the  words  of  Malachi  iv.  5,  6,  will 
hardly  bear  any  other  than  a  personal  meaning,)  who  is  to 
forerun  His  greater  and  second  coming." 

The  other  apostles  and  disciples  had  remained  at  the 
foot  of  the  mount,  probably  in  some  town  or  village,  during 
the  absence  of  the  Lord.  In  the  morning,  before  He  de- 
scended, a  crowd  had  gathered  around  them,  doubtless 
seeking  Him,  and  in  the  crowd  a  man  who  had  brought  his 
lunatic  son  to  be  healed.  In  the  absence  of  Jesus,  he  pre- 
sented him  to  the  disciples,  who  could  not  heal  him.  Among 
those  present  were  certain  scribes,  who,  apparently  taking 
occasion  from  their  ill  success,  began  to  question  with  them, 
and  plainly  with  an  evil  intent.  Whilst  they  are  disputing 
with  the  disciples  Jesus  appears,  and  is  gladly  received  by 
the  multitude.    In  answer  to  the  father's  prayer  He  heals 


326 


THE  LIFE   OP   OUB  LOED 


the  child,  after  a  severe  rebuke  of  the  general  unbelief. 
The  question  afterward  addressed  to  Him  by  the  disciples 
when  alone,  "  Why  could  not  we  cast  him  out  ? "  shows 
that  they  supposed  the  power  to  work  miracles,  which  had 
been  given  the  Twelve  when  they  were  sent  forth  upon 
their  mission,  was  still  continued  to  them. 


Autjjmn,  782.     a.  d.  29. 

Departing  from  the  place  where  He  had  healed  the    Mark  ix.  30-32. 
lunatic  child,  He  passes  through  Galilee,  avoiding,  as    Matt.  xvii.  22,  23. 
far  as  possible,  public  attention,  and  giving  Himself  to 
the  instruction  of  His  disciples.     He  repeats  the  an-    Luke  ix.  43-45* 
nouncement  respecting  His  death  and   resurrection, 
but  they  do  not  understand  Him,  and  are  afraid  to  ask. 
After  some  time  thus  spent  they  come  to  Capernaum  ;     Mark  ix.  33-50. 
and  He  here  discourses  to  them  of  their  equality  as    Matt,  xviii.  1-35. 
brethren,  and  teaches  them  who  shall  be  regarded  as    Luke  ix.  46-50. 
the  greatest  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.     Feter,  hav-    Matt.  xvii.  24-27. 
ing  declared  to  the  tax  gatherer  that  his  master  is  lia- 
ble to  pay  tribute,  goes  by  Christ's  direction  to  the  sea, 
and  finds  the  tribute  money  in  the  mouth  of  a  fish. 
Soon  after  this  Jesus  goes  up  secretly  to  Jerusalem  to    John  vii.  2-10. 
attend  the  feast  of  Tabernacles. 


If  the  healing  of  the  lunatic  child  was,  as  we  have  sup- 
posed, in  the  neighborhood  of  Csesarea  Philippi,  the  Lord, 
crossing  the  Jordan  near  its  sources,  would  enter  the  north- 
ern parts  of  Galilee,  and  thus  journey  toward  Capernaum. 
That  this  circuit  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  public  teaching 
is  expressly  said  by  Mark,  (ix.  30 :)  "  And  they  departed 
thence,  and  passed  through  Galilee ;  and  He  would  not 
that  any  man  should  know."  And  the  reason  is  added  why 
He  would  not  be  known,  "  for  He  taught  His  disciples,"  <fec. 
To  instruct  them  more  fully  in  the  truths  He  had  just 
opened  to  them  of  His  approaching  death  and  resurrection, 
now  occupied  Him,  and  the  presence  of  large  crowds  would 


AMBITION   OF  THE  APOSTLES.  327 

have  hindered  Him  in  His  purpose.  How  long  this  circuit 
continued  we  do  not  know,  nor  what  particular  parts  of 
Galilee  He  visited.  Matthew's  language,  (xvii.  22,)  u  And 
while  they  abode  in  Galilee,"  or  more  literally,  "  while  they 
were  going  about  in  Galilee,"  implies  that  some  time  was 
spent  there.  The  continued  inability  of  the  disciples  to 
understand  the  Lord's  words  respecting  His  death  and  res- 
urrection, will  surprise  no  one  acquainted  with  the  Messi- 
anic expectations  of  the  Jews.  They  found  it  impossible 
to  give  a  literal  interpretation  to  His  words,  but  they  were 
afraid  to  ask  Him  what  He  meant. 

During  these  journeyings,  and  probably  just  before 
their  arrival  at  Capernaum,  a  dispute  had  arisen  among  the 
disciples,  who  should  be  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom. 
That  He  was  about  to  reveal  Himself  as  the  Messiah  and 
set  up  His  kingdom,  was  a  belief  still  firmly  rooted  in  their 
minds,  and  which  His  mysterious  words  about  His  death 
and  resurrection  seemed  only  to  confirm.  They  knew  that 
some  great  event  was  approaching  ;  what  should  it  be  but 
this  long  hoped  for  manifestation  of  the  kingdom,  when 
David's  son  should  sit  on  David's  throne  ?  It,  therefore, 
naturally  became  now  a  question  of  deep  personal  interest 
to  those  most  ambitious  among  them,  who  should  fill  the 
highest  places  under  the  new  government.  Perhaps  the 
preference  shown  by  Jesus  to  the  three  whom  He  took 
with  Him  upon  the  mount,  and  whom  He  had  before  spe- 
cially honored,  may  have  provoked  envy  and  occasioned 
this  dispute.  It  was  not  till  after  His  arrival  at  Caperna- 
um that  Jesus  took  notice  of  it.  From  Matthew  (xviii.  1)  it 
seems  that  the  incident  of  the  tribute  money  had  some  con- 
nection with  the  strife,  as  some  of  the  disciples  coming  to 
Him  immediately  after  asked  Him  directly,  "Who  is  the 
greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven?"1     In  the  most  ex. 

1  Greswell  (ii.  462)  attempts  to  show  that  the  question  in  Matthew  to  Je- 


328  TUB  LIFE  OF  OUB  LORD. 

pressive  way,  through  a  little  child,  He  teaches  them  that 
only  those  like  little  children,  trustful,  humble,  unambi- 
tious, could  even  enter  the  heavenly  kingdom. 

The  tax  demanded  of  Jesus  was  the  temple  tax,  which 
all  Jews  were  obliged  to  pay  yearly,  (Ex.  xxx.  13.)1  Some, 
as  Wieseler,  (265,)  have  understood  a  civil  tax,  payable  to 
the  Romans ;  but  against  this  is  the  use  of  "  didrachma"  for 
the  tribute,  a  sum  equal  to  the  half  shekel,  the  legal  due. 
Besides  this,  the  scope  of  the  Lord's  reply  shows  that  the 
temple  tax  is  meant.  As  the  Son  of  God,  He  was  exempt 
from  the  payment  to  which  others  were  bound  for  the  sup- 
port of  ecclesiastical  services.  Had  it  been  a  civil  tax,  this 
reply  would  not  have  been  so  directly  to  the  purpose.* 

According  to  the  Rabbins  this  temple  tax  was  due 
between  the  15th  and  25th  Adar.'  This  would  be  about  the 
time  of  the  Passover.  Greswell,  however,  maintains,  upon 
the  same  authority,  that  it  was  paid  at  each  of  the  three 
great  feasts.  We  cannot  then  determine  at  what  period  of 
the  year  this  demand  of  the  tax  gatherer  was  made.  If 
payment  was  legally  due  at  the  Passover,  still  it  may  not 
have  actually  been  demanded  till  a  later  period.  It  may 
be  that,  being  regarded  as  a  prophet,  up  to  this  time  no 
tax  at  all  had  been  demanded  of  Jesus,  and  that  now,  at  the 
instigation  of  His  enemies,  and  for  the  first  time,  the  de- 
mand was  made.4  Some  suppose  that  the  Rabbins  were 
exempt  from  taxation ;  and  the  question  of  the  tax  gatherer 
seems  to  show  that  he  had  not  previously  collected  it  of 
the  Lord.  That  he  should  ask  the  question  of  Peter,  may 
be  explained  from  his  prominent  position  as  a  disciple,  or 
because,  as  a  resident  in  the  city,  he  was  well  known.    The 


sus  was  subsequent  to  His  question  to  the  apostles  in  Mark  (ix.  83)  and  in 
Luke,  (ix.  46.) 

1  Josephus,  Antiq.,  18.  9.  -. 

»  Meyer ;  Winer,  ii.  588*  note  8 ;  Trench,  Mir.,  299 ;  Alford ;  Ellicott,  229. 

•  See  Winer,  i.  4.  *  See  Lightfoot  in  loco. 


JESUS  AND  HIS  BBETHEEN.  329 

inference  of  Bengel  from  the  fact,  that  the  Lord  paid  the 
tax  for  Himself  and  Peter  but  for  none  other  of  the  apos- 
tles, that  the  others  were  too  young  to  be  taxed,  is  wholly 
improbable  and  unnecessary.  A  better  basis  has  the  infer- 
ence of  some  early  commentators,  that  the  honor  here 
shown  to  Peter  gave  edge  to  the  dispute  about  preeminence. 

It  is  at  this  period  that  we  put  His  journey  to  Jerusa- 
lem to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  recorded  by  John,  (vii.  2-10.) 
By  many  this  journey  and  that  mentioned  by  Luke  (ix. 
51-53)  are  regarded  as  identical.  But  a  careful  compari- 
son shows  so  many  points  of  difference  that  it  is  very  diffi- 
cult to  believe  them  the  same.  These  will  be  hereafter 
examined.  For  the  present  it  will  be  assumed  that  the 
journeys  are  distinct. 

In  what  place  Jesus  met  His  brethren,  (John  vii.  3,) 
and  whence  He  departed  to  the  feast,  is  not  certain,  but 
most  probably  it  was  Capernaum.1  His  brethren  appear 
not  wholly  as  unbelievers,  but  as  those  who,  recognizing 
His  works  as  wonderful,  do  not  understand  His  course  of 
conduct.  Sharing  the  common  opinions  respecting  the 
Messiah,  they  felt  that  if  His  Messianic  claims  were  well 
founded,  there  could  be  no  general  recognition  of  them  so 
long  as  He  confined  His  labors  to  Galilee,  (see  vs.  41  and 
62.)  In  advising  Him  to  go  and  show  Himself  in  Judea, 
their  motives  were  friendly  rather  than  evil.  They  knew 
that  Jerusalem  was  the  ecclesiastical  centre,  and  that  if  He 
desired  to  be  received  by  the  nation  at  large,  He  must  first 
find  reception  there.  His  works  in  Galilee,  however  great 
they  might  be,  could  avail  little  so  long  as  the  priests  and 
Bcribes  did  not  give  Him  their  countenance  and  aid.  The 
disciples  He  had  already  made  were  men  of  no  reputation. 
Their  adhesion  gave  Him  no  strength,  for  they  were  but 
Galilean  fishermen  and  publicans,  and,  with  few  exceptions, 

»  Greawell,  ii.  482. 


330  THE  LITE   OP  OTJB  LORD. 

poor  and  obscure  people.  He  must  then  stay  no  longer  in 
that  remote  province,  but  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  there  in 
the  temple,  and  before  the  priests  and  rulers,  do  His 
works.  If  once  recognized  there,  He  would  be  every- 
where received.  Had  Jesus  been  such  a  Messiah  as  they 
supposed  was  to  come,  their  advice  was  good.  It  is  plain 
that  they  did  not  in  any  true  sense  believe  on  Him,  but  in 
a  spirit  of  purely  worldly  wisdom  attempted  to  guide  Him 
in  His  conduct.  Their  advice  was  in  its  nature  a  tempta- 
tion like  that  of  the  devil,  (Matt.  iv.  5  ;)  a  temptation  to 
reveal  Himself  before  the  time,  and  in  a  presumptuous  way. 
To  the  counsel  of  His  brethren  Jesus  replies  in  sub- 
stance, that  His  time  is  not  come  ;  that  they  were  always 
sure  of  a  friendly  reception  from  the  world,  but  Him  it 
must  hate,  because  He  testified  against  it.  Go  you  up  to 
the  feast.  I  do  not  go  up  to  it,  for  my  time  is  not  yet 
come.  Some  think  to  find  a  contradiction  here,  since,  say- 
ing "  I  go  not  up  to  this  feast,"  He  afterward  went.1  One 
solution  makes  Him  to  have  had  no  intention  at  this  time  to 
go,  but  afterward  He  changed  His  mind  and  went.  An- 
other lays  weight  upon  the  use  of  the  present  tense,  "  I  go 
not,"  which  means  "  I  go  not  now,  or  yet ; "  or,  as  given  by 
Alford,  "  I  am  not  at  present  going  up."  Another  lays 
weight  upon  "  this  feast,"  which  it  is  said  He  did  not  in 
fact  attend,  except  in  its  last  days.  Still  another  thus  de- 
fines His  words  :  "  I  go  not  up  with  you,  or  in  public  with 
the  company  of  pilgrims,"  or  "  I  go  not  up  in  such  way  as 
you  think  or  advise."  The  matter  to  one  who  considers 
the  scope  of  Christ's  reply  to  His  brethren,  presents  no 
real  difficulty.  They  had  said  :  "  Go  up  to  this  feast  and 
manifest  thyself.  Show  thyself  to  the  world,  and  work  thy 
miracles  in  Judea."  He  replied  :  "  My  time  to  manifest 
myself  is  not  yet  come.     I  go  not  up  to  this  feast  with  such 

1  For  the  reading  in  the  received  text,  "  I  go  not  up  yet,"  ovwto  ava&aivw. 
Teschendorf  has,  "  I  go  not  up,"  ovk  avafkuvw.     So  Alford,  Meyer. 


JESUS   AT  THE   FEAST   OF  TABERNACLES.  331 

intent.  At  some  subsequent  feast  I  shall  manifest  myself." 
As  He  had  said  so  He  acted,  going  up  to  Jerusalem  in  a 
secret  way,  avoiding  all  publicity,  nor  arriving  there  till 
the  feast  was  partially  past.  At  the  following  Passover  He 
acted  in  substance  as  His  brethren  had  advised,  showing 
Himself  to  the  world,  and  entering  the  holy  city  as  a  King, 
amid  the  shouts  of  the  multitude. 

The  feast  of  Tabernacles  was  preceded  by  the  fast  of 
the  Atonement,  upon  the  10th  Tisri,  or  the  6th  October 
of  this  year,  the  feast  itself  beginning  on  the  15th  Tisri,  or 
11th  October.  The  Lord  probably  reached  Jerusalem  on 
the  12th  or  13th  October.  That  He  had  reached  the  city 
earlier,  and  only  now  first  showed  Himself  in  the  temple, 
is  not  implied  in  the  narrative.  We  know  not  whether  the 
apostles  waited  for  Him,  or  went  up  at  the  usual  time,  but 
the  latter  is  more  probable.  He  went  "  as  it  were  in  se- 
cret," which  may  imply  not  only  that  He  went  unattended, 
but  went  by  some  unusual  and  obscure  route.  That  there 
was  anything  supernatural  in  His  journey,  or  in  His  appear- 
ance in  the  temple,  as  some  have  supposed,  does  not  appear 
in  the  narrative. 


llth-18th  Oct.  782.    a.  d.  29. 

During  the  first  days  of  the  feast  there  was  much  in-    John  vii.  11-13. 
quiry  among  the  people  concerning  Jesus,  and  His  prob- 
able appearance  at  the  feast,  but  no  one  spake  openly 
through  fear  of  the  Jews.     After  His  arrival  at  Jerusa-    John  vil  14-31 
lem.  He  went  into  the  temple  and  taught.    His  enemies 
wish  to  arrest  Him  but  do  not,  and  many  people  believe 
on  Him.     Upon  a  subsequent  day  of  the  feast  the  Phar-    John  vii.  32-53. 
iaees  make  an  attempt  to  arrest  Him,  but  it  fails,  and  the 
officers  they  had  sent  return  declaring,  "  never  man 
spake  like  this  man."    Nicodemus  makes  an  useless  ef- 
fort to  induce  them  to  act  with  equity. 


332  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LOED. 

Here,  as  elsewhere  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  a  distinction 
is  to  be  noted,  although  not  always  preserved,  between  the 
"  Jews  "  and  the  "  people."  By  the  former  he  means  the 
nation  as  headed  up  in  its  rulers,  and  represented  by  them, 
and  ever  hostile  to  the  Lord.  Thus  he  says,  (v.  11,)  "the 
Jews  sought  Him  at  the  feast,  and  said,  Where  is  He  ? " 
Again,  (v.  13,)  "  no  man  spake  openly  of  Him,  for  fear  of 
the  Jews."  By  the  latter  He  means  the  people,  (literally 
"  crowd,"  "  multitude,"  oxAos,)  regarded  as  an  assemblage 
of  individuals,  amongst  whom  there  were  many  differences 
of  opinion,  some  favorable  and  some  unfavorable  to  Jesus. 
(See  v.  12.)  A  large  portion  of  the  crowd  on  this  occasion 
was  composed  of  pilgrims  to  the  feast,  and  these  are  distin- 
guished from  the  citizens  of  Jerusalem,  (v.  25.)  But  there 
was  no  public  expression  of  opinion  in  His  favor,  all  His 
friends  being  afraid  of  the  hierarchy.  His  sudden  appear- 
ance in  the  temple  at  so  late  a  period  of  the  feast  sur- 
prised all ;  and  the  power  of  His  speech,  not  the  truths  that 
He  uttered,  made  His  enemies  to  marveL  It  will  serve  to 
the  understanding  of  the  present  narrative  to  keep  in  mind 
that  at  the  time  of  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man  the 
Jewish  rulers  determined,  perhaps  formally  in  full  Sanhe- 
drim, to  put  Him  to  death,  (John  V.  16-18  ;)  that  this  de- 
termination was  known  to  some  at  least  of  the  citizens  of 
Jerusalem ;  and  that  Jesus  had  not,  from  that  time  to  the 
present,  entered  Judea.  He  can  now,  therefore,  refer  back 
to  that  miracle,  and  to  the  purpose  to  kill  Him,  as  to  things 
well  known  to  the  rulers  and  to  some  of  the  people,  although 
some  of  the  multitude,  doubtless  the  feast  pilgrims,  (v.  20,) 
were  ignorant  of  this  purpose.  Thus  we  readily  see  why 
the  citizens  were  surprised  that  He  should  be  allowed  to 
speak  at  all  in  the  temple. 

It  is  not  plain  when  the  Pharisees  and  chief  priests 
(v.  32)  sent  officers  to  take  Him.  It  was  perhaps,  as  said 
by  Stier,  upon  the  day  following  His  appearance  in  the 


ATTEMPT  TO   AEEKST  THE   LORD.  333 

temple,  and  before  the  last  day  of  the  feast.  Greswell 
supposes  that  for  prudential  reasons  they  deferred  the  at- 
tempt till  the  last  day.  It  was  plainly  an  act  not  of  indi- 
viduals but  of  the  Sanhedrim,  which  probably  was  assem- 
bled specially  for  the  purpose.  They  were  induced  to  take 
this  step  by  the  great  impression  his  teachings  had  made 
upon  the  people.  But,  if  the  officers  were  sent  before  the 
last  day,  they  seem  to  have  waited  for  a  more  favorable 
hour,  perhaps  fearing  to  attempt  an  arrest,  and  contented 
themselves  with  watching  Him  till  the  conclusion  of  the 
feast  Upon  the  last  day  some  of  the  multitude  (v.  44) 
would  have  taken  Him,  but  the  officers,  who  had  been 
greatly  moved  by  His  words,  made  no  effort  to  do  so,  much 
to  the  vexation  of  those  who  had  sent  them,  and  to  whom 
they  now  made  their  report. 

It  is  disputed  whether  u  the  last  great  day  of  the  feast n 
(v.  37)  was  the  seventh  or  eighth.  Most  maintain  the  lat- 
ter/ According  to  the  law,  (Numb.  29,  35,)  upon  the  eighth 
day  a  solemn  assembly  should  be  held  and  special  sacri- 
fices offered.  This  day  seems  to  have  become  in  popular 
estimation  the  great  day  of  the  feast.  Lightfoot,  (in  loco,) 
after  stating  the  Jewish  opinions  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
several  sacrifices,  adds:  "On  the  other  seven  days  they 
thought  supplications  and  sacrifices  were  offered,  not  so 
much  for  themselves  as  for  the  nations  of  the  world ;  but 
the  solemnities  of  the  eighth  day  were  wholly  in  their  own 
behalf.  They  did  not  reckon  the  eighth  day  as  included 
within  the  feast,  but  a  festival  day,  separately  and  by  it- 
self"9 It  is  questioned  whether  the  drawing  of  water,  to 
which  the  Lord  is  supposed  to  allude,  (vs.  37,  38,)  and 
which  took  place  upon  each  of  the  seven  days,  took  place 
also  upon  the  eighth.*    But  if  it  did  not,  as  Alford  rightly 

>  So  Meyer,  Alford,  Tholuck,  Lichtenstein ;  contra,  Greswell. 

'  See  Joeephus,  Antiq.,  3.  10.  4. 

»  See  Wilier,  ii.  8,  note  2 ;  Alford  in  loco. 


334  THE  LIFE  OF   OUE  LORD. 

remarks,  it  would  not  exclude  a  reference  to  what  had 
been  done  on  the  preceding  days.  Many,  however,  main- 
tain that  water  was  also  poured  out  on  the  eighth  day ;  and 
that  Christ's  words  were  spoken  as  the  priest  who  bore  it 
entered  the  court.1 

The  haughtiness  of  the  priests  and  Pharisees,  and  their 
contempt  for  all  not  of  themselves,  are  strikingly  displayed 
in  their  remarks  upon  the  return  of  the  officers ;  and  their 
rejection  of  the  manifestly  just  and  legal  proposition  of 
Nicodemus,  shows  that  they  were  bound  by  no  considera- 
tions of  equity.  It  is  possible  that  others  agreed  with 
Nicodemus,  and  that  there  were  internal  dissensions  in  the 
council. 


Oct.  782.    a.d.  29. 


The  Lord  spends  the  night  following  at  the  Mount    John  viii  1-10, 
of  Olives,  and  returning  early  next  morning  to  the  tem- 
ple, teaches  the  people.     An  adulteress  is  brought  before 
Him,  whom  He  directs  to  go  and  sin  no  more.     He  an- 
swers the  Pharisees  from  the  treasury,  and  continues 
to  speak  to  the  people.     Many  believe  on  Him,  but    John  viii.  12-69. 
others  are  angry,  and  take  up  stones  to  cast  at  Him. 
As  He  goes  He  meets  and  heals  a  blind  man,  who  had    John  ix.  1-12. 
'  been  blind  from  birth,  and  it  was  the  Sabbath.     So  soon 
as  this  miracle  was  reported  to  the  Pharisees,  they  call    John  ix.  18-84. 
him  and  his  parents,  and  examine  him  and  cast  him  out 
He  afterward  meets  Jesus,  and  believes  and  worships    John  ix.  85-88. 
Him.     Some  Pharisees  who  are  present  ask  Him  a  ques-    John  ix.  89,  x.  18. 
tion,  to  which  He  replies  in  the  parable  of  the  Good 
Shepherd.     There  is  great  division  of  sentiment  among    John  x.  19-21. 
the  Jews  in  regard  to  Him. 

The  exact  order  of  the  events  given  above  is  not  cer- 
tain.    Many  critics  reject  as  not  genuine  the  account  of  the 

»  See  Tboluck  in  loco. 


i 

JESUS  TEACHES   IN  THE  TEMPLE.  335 

adulterous  woman.1  If  this  be  rejected,  commencing  vii. 
53,  and  extending  to  viii.  12,  there  seems  ground  to  sup- 
pose that  the  words  from  viii.  12-20,  were  spoken  in  the 
treasury  upon  the  last  day  of  the  feast,  and  perhaps  also 
the  subsequent  words  to  v.  59.  If  it  be  not  rejected,  a  day 
or  more  must  have  elapsed.  We  give  the  probable  order 
in  either  case.  The  feast  began  on  the  15th  Tisri,  and 
ended  on  the  21st.  The  eighth  day  was  the  22d,  which 
was  observed  as  a  Sabbath.  We  cannot  tell  whether  Jesus 
appeared  in  the  temple  and  taught  (vii.  14)  on  the  17th, 
18th,  or  19th  day.  According  to  Wieseler  (309)  it  was  the 
18th,  which  he  makes  to  have  been  a  Sabbath ;  according 
to  Greswell  (ii.  491)  it  was  the  19th.  It  may,  with  equal 
probability,  have  been  the  17th.  Assuming  that  the  last 
great  day  of  the  feast  was  the  2 2d,  an  interval  of  three 
or  more  days  must  have  elapsed.  Upon  the  first  of  these 
days  occurred  what  is  narrated  in  vii.  14-31,  or,  as  some 
prefer,  in  14-28.  The  next  event  mentioned,  (v.  32,)  the 
sending  of  officers,  was  probably  on  the  last  day,  as  on  this 
day  they  made  their  report,  (v.  45,)  though  it  is  possible 
that  vs.  45"-52  described  what  had  occurred  earlier.  There 
are  then  two  or  three  days  of  the  feast  during  which  Jesus 
was  present,  of  which  nothing  is  related.  Upon  the  last 
day  He  speaks  of  Ilimself  as  giving  living  water  (vii.  37-38.) 
Whether  His  words  in  viii.  12-20  and  21-59,  omitting  here 
the  account  of  the  adulterous  woman  as  not  genuine,  were 
all  spoken  afterward  upon  the  same  day,  or  upon  succes- 
sive days,  it  is  difficult  to  decide.  Some  infer  from  the  men- 
tion of  the  "treasury,"  v.  20,  and  the  use  of  "again,"  v.  21, 
that  these  words  were  spoken  after  the  eighth  day,  and 
upon  different  days.'  Some,  on  the  other  hand,  making  the 
healing  of  the  blind  man  (ix.  1-7)  to  have  taken  place  on 
the  last  day  of  the  feast,  which  was  a  Sabbath,  refer  all  Ilia 

»  So  TiBchendorf,  Meyer,  Alford,  Tholuck,  Trench. 
»  So  Meyer. 


336  THE  LIFE  OP   OtTB  LOBD. 

words  (ch.  viii.)  to  this  day.  The  former  is  most  probable, 
and  fromviii.  21-59  we  find  but  the  events  of  a  single  day. 
Was  the  blind  man  healed  on  this  day?  So  say  many, 
bringing  the  attempt  to  stone  Him  and  the  miracle  into 
immediate  connection.1  But  it  is  more  probable  that  some 
interval  elapsed.2  It  is  not  likely  that  Jesus,  when  "  lie  hid 
Himself  and  went  out  of  the  temple,"  was  accompanied  by 
His  disciples ;  yet  they  were  with  Him  when  He  saw  the 
blind  man,  (ix.  2.)  Nor  would  they  in  such  a  moment  be 
likely  to  ask  speculative  questions  respecting  the  cause  of 
the  man's  blindness.  We  conclude  then  that  the  Sabbath 
upon  which  the  blind  man  was  healed  (ix.  14)  was  not  the 
eighth  day  of  the  feast,  but  the  first  week  Sabbath  fol- 
lowing. 

If  we  include  the  account  of  the  adulterous  woman, 
this  interview  with  her  was  the  day  after  the  eighth  of  the 
feast,  or  upon  the  23d  Tisri.  The  healing  of  the  blind 
man  was  then  upon  the  Sabbath  following.  Against  this  it 
is  objected  that  the  Lord  had  no  motive  to  remain  in  Jeru- 
salem after  the  feast  was  ended,  and  that  the  narrative  im- 
plies that  the  feast  pilgrims  were  still  present.*  But  on  the 
other  side,  the  mention  that  it  was  the  Sabbath,  (ix.  14,) 
implies  that  it  was  another  day,  and  therefore  so  distin- 
guished ;  and  the  Lord  may,  for  special  reasons,  have  re- 
mained after  most  of  the  pilgrims  had  gone. 

The  effect  of  Christ's  words  (viii.  21-29)  was  such,  that 
"  many  believed  on  Him."  It  is  questioned  whether  these 
believers  are  meant,  (v.  33,)  and  whether  to  them,  in  com- 
mon with  others,  are  addressed  the  subsequent  words,  (34- 
38.)  "  The  Lord  mingles  them  indiscriminately  in  the  gen- 
eral mass  of  the  people,  in  spite  of  the  transient  and  indis- 
tinct impulse  of  faith."  *  But  it  seems  more  probable  that 
lie  speaks  to  the  Jews  generally,  and  does  not  include 

»  Meyer,  Luthardt,  Trench.  »  See  Alford  in  loco. 

»  So  Lichteustein,  299.  «  Stier ;  so  Alfo. 


THE   POOL   OF   SILO  AM.  337 

them ;  for  how  could  those  in  any  sense  be  said  to  be- 
lieve on  Him  to  whom  He  immediately  addresses  the  re- 
proach, "Ye  seek  to  kill  me  because  my  word  hath  no  place 
in  you." 

The  attempt  to  stone  Him  was  the  fruit  of  sudden  rage. 
It  is  denied  by  many,  as  Meyer  and  Alford,  that  the  Lord's 
escape  from  their  violence  involved  anything  supernatural. 
The  language  may  be  construed  either  way ;  but,  as  said  by 
Winer,1  the  supernatural  interpretation  is  to  be  preferred 
as  more  correspondent  with  the  character  of  this  Evan- 
gelist. Tholuck  does  not  find  the  intimation  of  a  miracle 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  but  of  a  special  providence. 

The  position  of  the  pool  of  Siloam,  where  the  blind  man 
was  sent  to  wash,  has  been  much  disputed,  but  most  mod- 
ern writers  agree  that  it  lies  at  the  mouth  of  the  valley  of 
the  Tyropoeon,  near  the  base  of  Ophel.*  The  waters  of  this 
pool  come  from  the  fountain  of  the  Virgin,  which  lies  on 
the  west  side  of  the  valley  of  Jehosaphat,  through  a  sub- 
terranean passage  cut  in  the  rock.  It  is  a  current  belief 
that  the  water  of  the  fountain  comes  from  a  living  spring 
beneath  the  temple.  Barclay,  (523,)  however,  asserts  that 
the  subterraneous  canal  derived  its  former  supply  of  water, 
not  from  Moriah,  but  from  Zion."  It  is  still  in  dispute 
whether  any  of  the  water  of  Siloam  comes  from  the 
temple. 

The  effect  of  this  miracle  was  to  make  a  division  among 
the  Pharisees.  Some  said  that  it  was  a  violation  of  the 
law,  being  done  on  the  Sabbath ;  others,  that  no  sinner 
could  do  such  miracles.  At  first  there  was  a  general  dis- 
position to  doubt  the  reality  of  the  miracle.  As  this,  how- 
ever, is  established  by  the  testimony  of  his  parents,  they 
revile  the  man,  and  cast  him  out    This  may  refer  to  his 

Gram.,  264 ;  see  Bengel  in  loco.  *  Robinson,  i.  833  ;  Raumer,  296, 

*  See  Robinson,  i.  843 ;  Porter,  L  138. 

15 


338  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LOED. 

being  thrust  from  the  room  where  they  were  assembled,1 
or  to  the  sentence  of  excommunication.9  Some  suppose 
that  he  was  now  before  the  great  Sanhedrim  ;  others,  that 
he  was  before  the  lesser ;  others  still,  that  he  was  not 
before  any  judicial  tribunal,  but  before  some  of  the  chief 
Pharisees  informally  assembled.  From  the  manner  of  the 
examination,  and  their  action  at  its  close,  it  is  most  prob- 
able that  they  were  clothed  with  some  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority. 

How  soon  after  the  blind  man  was  cast  out  the  Lord 
met  him,  is  not  stated.  Not  improbably,  He  may  have  met 
him  the  same  day  toward  evening.  The  words  (v.  39)  seem 
to  be  addressed  to  the  disciples,  and  probably  after  His 
meeting  with  the  blind  man,  and  the  words  to  the  Phari- 
sees immediately  followed.  The  effect  of  these  words  was 
again  to  work  a  division  of  opinion  respecting  Him,  some 
saying  that  He  had  a  devil,  others,  that  neither  His  words 
nor  works  were  those  of  a  man  who  had  a  devil. 

From  Jerusalem  the  Lord  returns  to  Galilee.  Of  His 
return  the  Evangelist  gives  us  no  information.  Many  sup- 
pose that  He  did  not  return  to  Galilee  at  all,  but  spent  the 
interval  between  the  feasts  of  Tabernacles  and  of  Dedication 
at  Jerusalem  or  in  its  vicinity.'  Some  suppose  a  return  to 
Galilee  after  the  latter  feast.  It  has  been  assumed  that 
the  journey  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (John  vii.  10)  is  not 
identical  with  that  in  Luke  ix.  51,  but  that  the  latter  was 
subsequent.  A  full  discussion  of  the  point  is  reserved  to 
the  Part  following. 

1  Meyer,  Lichtenstein.  •  Alford.    Trench  embraces  both. 

>  So  Meyer,  Alford,  Tholuck,  Robinson,  Tischendor£ 


PART  V. 

THE  LAST  JOURNEY  FROM  GALILEE,  AND  THE  ARRIVAL  AT 
BETHANY.    NOV.  782,  TO  APRIL,  783.     A.  D.  29,  80. 


Upon  the  LoroVs  Last  Journey  from  Galilee. 

If  the  views  that  have  already  been  presented  in  regard 
to  the  divisions  of  the  Lord's  ministry  are  correct,  we  are 
in  a  position  to  judge  rightly  the  statements  of  the  Evan- 
gelists respecting  the  period  that  intervened  between  the 
departure  from  Galilee  and  the  commencement  of  Passion 
Week,  a  period  of  about  five  months.  In  Galilee  the  Lord 
had  accomplished  His  work.  He  had  gathered  about  Him 
a  considerable  body  of  disciples,  (1  Cor.  xv.  6,)  who  saw  in 
Him,  with  more  or  less  clearness  of  vision,  the  Christ  of 
the  prophets,  and  Son  of  the  living  God ;  and  there  was 
also  a  much  larger  number,  who,  unable  to  see  in  Him  the 
Messiah  of  their  hopes,  still  believed  that  He  was  a  prophet 
sent  from  God,  and  heard  His  words  with  reverence.  Be- 
sides, there  must  have  been  very  many  in  all  parts  of  the 
land,  who  had  seen  His  works,  and  been  more  or  less  im- 
pressed by  them,  and  yet  had  not  felt  the  power  of  the 
truths  He  taught.  His  labors  had  by  no  means  been  in 
vain,  although,  as  set  forth  in  His  own  parable,  but  little 


340  THE   LIFE  OP   OUB  LORD. 

of  the  seed  He  had  so  diligently  sown,  fell  into  good 
ground. 

There  are  two  circumstances  that  seem  to  have  marked, 
if  not  determined,  the  conclusion  of  the  Galilean  ministry  ; 
first,  that  the  apostles,  not  to  speak  of  other  disciples,  had 
learned  the  mystery  of  the  Lord's  person  as  the  Son  of 
God,  divine  and  human  ;  second,  that  the  machinations  of 
His  enemies  at  Jerusalem  were  arousing  great  hostility 
against  Him  in  Galilee,  and  making  the  further  prosecution 
of  His  labors  there  full  of  difficulty  and  danger.  Both  of 
these  points  demand  attention. 

It  needs  no  argument  to  show  that  the  Lord's  ministry 
must  primarily  aim  at  the  recognition,  on  the  part  of  His 
disciples,  of  the  great  fact  that  in  His  person  "  God  was 
manifest  in  flesh."  Until  they  were  able  to  rise  above  the 
ordinary  Jewish  conceptions  of  the  Messiah,  and  to  see  in 
Him  the  Son  of  God,  He  could  open  to  them  but  little  of 
the  divine  purpose.  He  could  say  nothing  to  them  in  dis- 
tinct terms  of  His  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension.  He 
must  continue  with  them  in  person  till,  through  their  com- 
munion with  Him,  they  should  learn  who  He  was,  and 
what  His  relations  to  the  Father.  And,  as  we  have  seen, 
when  Peter,  in  the  name  of  all  the  apostles,  made  the  con- 
fession that  He  was  "  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God," 
He  for  the  first  time  announced  to  them  His  approaching 
death,  (Matt.  xvi.  21.)  This  announcement  it  was  still  very 
hard  for  them  to  understand,  and  perhaps  the  more  that 
they  now  knew  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  for  what  had 
death  to  do  with  Him  ?  But,  however  imperfectly  held, 
the  germ  of  this  great  truth  of  His  divinity  was  in  their 
hearts,  and  they  were  now  in  a  state  to  receive  those  teach- 
ings of  Jesus  which  had  reference  to  a  heavenly  kingdom, 
and  implied  His  divine  nature.  Thus  the  foundation  was 
laid  of  that  high  knowledge  of  God's  purpose  in  Him, 
which  they  needed  in  their  subsequent  work,  and  for  which 


JESUS   REJECTED   BY  THE   GALILEANS.  341 

they  were  further  prepared,  first  by  the  teachings  of  the 
Lord  Himself  after  His  resurrection,  and  then  by  the  de- 
scent of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  recognition  on  the  part  of  His 
disciples  of  His  divine  Sonship,  and  the  consequent  an- 
nouncement to  them  of  His  approaching  death,  mark  the 
end  of  His  Galilean  ministry.  Yet  a  little  time  must  elapse, 
that  these  truths  might  get  more  firmly  rooted  in  their 
faith,  ere  the  terrible  hour  of  His  sufferings  should  come. 

That,  as  His  disciples  grew  in  knowledge  and  love,  the 
darkness  and  bitterness  of  His  enemies  should  increase, 
was  but  what  Jesus  Himself  had  foretold.  All  who  loved 
the  light  gathered  around  Him,  the  true  light.  His  words 
were  the  test  by  which  the  thoughts  of  all  hearts  were  re- 
vealed ;  and  as  His  ministry  was  prolonged,  and  the  truths 
He  taught  were  more  distinctly  apprehended,  the  line  of 
separation  between  His  friends  and  His  enemies  became 
more  and  more  marked.  His  popularity  among  the  people 
seems  to  have  been  at  its  height  about  the  time  of  the  Bap- 
tists death.  Immediately  after  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand,  many  wished  to  take  Him  by  force  and  make 
Ilim  a  king.  But  the  nature  of  His  teachings  soon  repelled 
not  a  few  who  had  been  counted  among  His  disciples, 
(John  vi.  66  ;)  and  the  Pharisees  at  Capernaum,  and  else- 
where in  Galilee,  became  daily  more  open  and  virulent  in 
their  opposition.  Gradually  the  great  crowds,  that  at  first 
thronged  around  Him,  diminished  ;  the  novelty  of  His  first 
appearance  passed  away ;  His  calls  to  repentance  were  by 
most  disregarded ;  His  miracles,  wonderful  as  they  were, 
were  not  of  a  kind  to  satisfy  the  populace  that  He  was  the 
expected  Messiah  ;  His  enemies  were  active  and  unscrupu- 
lous in  representing  Him  as  a  blasphemer  ;  His  nearest  and 
most  trusted  disciples  were  uninfluential  and  obscure  men, 
] mblicans,  fishermen,  and  the  like.  It  is  not,  therefore,  in 
itself  at  all  strange  that  there  was  not  in  Galilee  at  the  end 


342  THE  LIFE   OF  OUR  LOED. 

of  His  ministry  any  general  belief  in  His  Messianic  claims. 
Outside  of  the  circle  of  the  disciples  He  was  regarded  by 
many  as  a  prophet,  but  not  as  the  Messiah,  (Matt.  xvi.  14  ; 
compare  also  xxi.  11.)  The  great  body  of  the  Galileans 
turned  away  from  Him.  Against  those  cities  which  He 
had  often  visited,  and  where  He  had  wrought  His  mightiest 
works,  He  pronounced  a  fearful  judgment.  Thus  in  Galilee 
as  in  Judea,  Jesus  was  despised  and  rejected  of  men. 

But  the  Lord  did  not  yet  forsake  His  people.  He  will 
make  one  more,  and  a  final  appeal.  Up  to  this  time  He 
had  not  openly  and  expressly  declared  Himself  to  be  the 
Messiah,  either  in  Judea  or  in  Galilee.  He  left  the  Jews 
to  judge  for  themselves,  from  His  teachings  and  His  works, 
who  He  was.  But  they  did  not  for  the  most  part  discern 
Him.  Their  preconceived  opinions  of  the  Messiah  prevented 
them  from  recognizing  Him  in  the  obscure,  humble,  peace- 
ful Galilean,  mighty  as  were  His  miracles,  and  sublime  as 
were  His  teachings.  Yet,  while  thus  not  answering  to  the 
popular  apprehensions  of  the  Messiah,  He  seemed  in  His 
discourses  to  claim  higher  rank  and  power  than  even  the 
Messiah  could  claim  ;  a  mysterious  relationship  to  God 
which  was  blasphemous.  Thus,  on  the  one  side,  His  silence 
respecting  His  Messiahship  caused  many,  who  were  aston- 
ished at  His  works  and  words,  to  look  upon  Him  only  as  a 
prophet ;  and  on  the  other,  His  repeated  allusions  to  His 
divine  Sonship  drew  upon  Him  the  enmity  of  many  as  a 
blasphemer. 

But  while  it  was  the  will  of  God  that  His  people  should 
be  left  at  first  to  recognize  His  Son  by  His  words  and 
works,  yet  He  willed  also  that  there  should  be  borne  clear 
and  full  testimony  to  His  Messianic  character,  that  all  might 
be  without  excuse.  Such  testimony  John  the  Baptist  had 
borne,  and  to  this  was  now  added  that  of  all  His  disciples, 
who  in  the  very  fact  of  their  discipleship  proclaimed  Him 
to  be  the  Messiah.     He  had  not  indeed  permitted  the  apos- 


JESUS  PRECEDED  BY  THE  SEVENTY.         343 

ties  to  proclaim  Him  by  name,  (Matt.  xvi.  20,)  because  He 
then  for  their  sake  avoided  publicity.  But  the  time  had 
now  come  when  His  Messianic  character  must  be  publicly 
asserted,  that  the  whole  nation  might  know  that  He  was 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  David,  the  King  of  Israel ;  and  if  re- 
jected, He  must  be  rejected  as  such.  The  people  should 
not  be  left  in  doubt  whether  He  asserted  Himself  to  be 
more  than  a  simple  prophet,  or,  like  the  Baptist,  a  forerun- 
ner of  the  Messiah.  He  will  go  up  to  Jerusalem ;  for  if  it 
cannot  be  that  a  prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem,  how  much 
more  is  this  true  of  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  He  will  go  with 
every  circumstance  of  publicity,  to  be  received  or  finally 
rejected  by  those  whom  God  had  set  to  be  the  heads  of 
the  people.  It  must  be  a  national  act,  and  cannot  be  done 
in  ignorance.  In  Judea,  He  had  testified  of  Himself  as  the 
Son  of  God,  but  in  vain.  Now  He  will  return  thither,  and 
His  disciples  shall  bear  witness  to  Him,  if  perchance  the 
nation  will  hear  them.  To  this  end  His  messengers  shall 
go  before  Him  into  every  place  where  He  designed  to  go, 
and  announce  the  kingdom  of  God  at  hand  in  the  person 
of  the  King. 

Here,  then,  we  find  the  grand  peculiarity  of  the  Lord's 
Lost  journey  to  Jerusalem.  As  He  knew,  and  had  declared 
to  His  apostles,  He  went  up  to  die ;  but  to  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple the  issue  of  His  journey  was  not  known,  and  the  secret 
purpose  of  God  did  not  hinder  this  last  appeal  to  them  to 
repent  and  receive  their  Lord. 

It  is  thus  the  mission  of  the  Seventy,  who  were  sent 
"  two  and  two  before  His  face  into  every  city  and  place 
whither  He  Himself  would  come,"  that  gives  to  this  last 
journey  its  distinctive  character.  Going  before  Him,  they 
announced  that  He  was  about  to  follow  them  on  His  way 
to  Jerusalem,  and  thus  prepared  all  who  heard  them  to  see 
in  Him,  not  a  mere  prophet,  the  risen  John,  or  Elijah,  or 
any  other ;  but  the  Christ.    They  were  His  heralds  or  fore- 


344  THE  LIFE   OP   OUE  LOED. 

runners,  and  their  work  was  to  announce  His  approach,  and 
to  prepare  His  way. 

This  large  deputation,  seventy  in  number,  thus  preced- 
ing Him,  must  of  necessity  have  given  great  publicity  to  all 
the  Lord's  movements,  and  gathered  crowds  around  Him 
in  the  various  places  He  visited.  As  they  were  to  confirm 
their  message  by  healing  the  sick,  this  also  would  excite 
general  interest  and  attention.  It  necessarily  follows  that 
He  pursued  some  fixed  order  in  the  journey,  going  only 
where  His  messengers  had  preceded  Him,  and  where  they 
had  found  reception.  As  they  were  to  go  two  and  two,  it 
follows  also  that  the  visitation  of  these  cities  must  have 
occupied  considerable  time  on  His  part,  and  that  the  jour- 
ney may  have  been  very  circuitous,  though  always  having 
Jerusalem  as  its  goal.  Being  the  last  journey,  and  so  the 
last  opportunity  to  address  those  whom  He  met,  His  teach- 
ings would  adapt  themselves  to  the  time ;  and  the  purpose 
for  which  He  sought  public  attention  through  His  heralds, 
would  naturally  give  a  peculiarly  Messianic  character  to  all 
His  discourses.  This  fact  would  also  arouse,  in  a  marked 
degree,  the  jealousy  of  His  enemies,  who  would  not  fail  to 
see  in  His  conduct  fresh  proof  of  His  ambition,  and  new 
grounds  of  fear.  Thus  the  Lord  would  be  brought  more 
and  more  into  collision  with  them,  and  His  reproofs  become 
more  severe  as  they  displayed  more  openly  their  hate. 

How  far  the  last  journey  from  Galilee  is  marked  by 
these  characteristics,  we  shall  see  when  we  come  to  the 
examination  of  the  several  evangelic  narratives.  It  will 
not,  however,  be  questioned  by  any  one  who  attentively 
examines  them,  and  especially  that  of  Luke,  which  is  most 
full,  that  He  was  attended  by  multitudes ;  that  He  came 
very  often  into  collision  with  the  Pharisees ;  that  His  re- 
proofs of  their  hypocrisy  were  very  severe  ;  that  His  teach- 
ings to  the  people  made  prominent  the  need  of  self-denial 
on  the  part  of  those  who  would  become  His  disciples ;  that 


THE   PINAL   DEPASTURE  FROM   GALILEE.  345 

His  parables  taught  very  clearly  the  approaching  rejection 
of  the  Jews,  the  appointment  of  new  stewards,  His  depart- 
ure to  His  Father,  and  His  return  in  glory ;  and  that  Ho 
aimed  to  keep  His  approaching  death  clearly  before  the 
eyes  of  the  apostles. 

If  the  character  of  the  Lord's  last  journey  to  Jerusalem 
be  correctly  stated,  it  is  apparent  that  to  the  mission  of  the 
Seventy  a  much  greater  importance  must  be  given  than 
has  usually  been  done  by  commentators  and  harmonists. 
Perhaps  the  fact  that  Luke  alone  mentions  this  mission,  has 
led  many  to  think  it  unimportant.  But  when  we  read  the 
terms  of  their  commission,  and  remember  that  it  has  had 
no  other  fulfilment  than  that  here  recorded,  that  there  has 
never  been,  so  far  as  we  know,  any  body  of  men  since  to 
perform  such  a  work ;'  we  cannot  believe  that  their  duty 
was  trivial,  and  its  results  insignificant.  The  labors  of  the 
Seventy  must  have  been  of  an  importance  corresponding 
with  the  breadth  and  dignity  of  their  commission,  and  have 
exerted  a  powerful  influence  upon  the  people  in  this  last 
stage  of  the  Lord's  ministry. 


Nov.  782.    a.d.  29. 

The  time  when  He  should  be  received  up  approach- 
ing, the  Lord  prepares  to  go  to  Jerusalem.     He  sends    Luke  ix.  61-66. 
messengers  before  Him,  who,  entering  into  a  Samaritan 
village,  are  rejected  by  the  inhabitants.     He  reproves 
His  angry  disciples  James  and  John,  and  departs  to 
another  village.     He  replies  to  one  who  proposes  to    Lurk  ix.  61,  62. 
follow  Him.     He  now  sends  out  seventy  of  His  dia-    Luke  x.  1-24. 
ciples,  to  go  two  and  two  into  every  city  and  place 
where  He  Himself  would  come.    They  depart,  and  re- 

»  Some,  indeed,  have  affirmed,  that  as  bishops  answer  to  apostles,  so  do 
presbyters  to  the  Seventy  j  but  this  view  has  found  no  general  reception. 
15* 


346  THE  LIFE   OP   OUB  LORD. 

turn  from  time  to  time  ag  they  fulfil  their  commission.    Matt.  xix.  1,  2. 
He  follows  in  their  steps,  journeying  through  Perea  to-    Mark  x.  1. 
ward  Jerusalem. 

To  reconcile  the  various  statements  of  the  Evangelists 
respecting  the  Lord's  final  departure  from  Galilee,  and  the 
course  of  His  journeys  till  He  reaches  Bethany,  six  days 
before  the  Passover,  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  tasks  that 
meet  the  harmonist.  That  we  may  see  clearly  the  points 
of  difference,  it  will  be  well  to  consider,  first,  the  state- 
ments of  each  Evangelist  separately  ;  and  as  John  gives  us 
the  most  distinct  notices  of  time,  we  begin  with  his  account. 

Jesus  goes  up,  "  not  openly,  but  as  it  were  in  secret," 
to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  (vii.  1-14,)  and  continues  at 
Jerusalem  till  the  end  of  the  feast,  and  perhaps  longer,  (vii. 
14 — x.  21.)  He  is  present  in  the  temple  at  the  feast  of  Ded- 
ication, (x.  22-39.)  He  goes  from  Jerusalem  beyond  Jor- 
dan, and  abides  there  and  teaches,  (x.  40-42.)  He  returns 
to  Bethany,  near  Jerusalem,  at  the  request  of  Mary  and 
Martha,  and  raises  Lazarus  from  the  dead,  (xi.  1-46.)  He 
retires  from  Bethany  to  Ephraim  to  escape  His  enemies, 
and  "  there  continued  with  His  disciples,"  (xi.  54.)  He 
leaves  Ephraim,  and  reaches  Bethany  six  days  before  the 
Passover,  (xii.  1.)  It  thus  appears  that  John  does  not 
mention  any  return  to  Galilee  after  Jesus  left  it  for  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles.  Still,  his  narrative  does  not  exclude 
it.  If  such  a  return  took  place,  it  may  have  been  in  the 
interval  from  Tabernacles  to  Dedication,  a  period  of  about 
two  months,  of  which  he  gives  no  account ;  or  it  may  have 
been  after  Dedication,  and  before  the  return  to  Bethany  for 
the  raising  of  Lazarus ;  or  after  the  sojourn  at  Ephraim, 
and  before  the  last  arrival  at  Bethany. 

In  Matthew  we  find  but  a  very  brief  mention  of  the 
departure  from  Galilee,  (xix.  1,2:)  u  And  it  came  to  pass 
that  when  Jesus  had  finished  these  sayings,  He  departed 
from  Galilee,  and  came  into  the  coasts  of  Judea  beyond 


THE   FINAL   DEPARTURE   PROM   GALILEE.  347 

Jordan :  and  great  multitudes  followed  Him,  and  He 
healed  them  there."  The  language  of  Mark  (x.  1)  is  very 
similar  :  "  And  He  arose  from  thence,  and  cometh  into  the 
coasts  of  Judea  by  the  farther  side  of  Jordan ;  and  the 
people  resort  unto  Him  again,  and  as  He  was  wont  He 
taught  them  again."  l  The  direction  of  this  journey  is  plain. 
Leaving  Galilee,  Jesus  crosses  the  Jordan,  and  passing 
southward  through  Perea,  thus  comes  to  the  borders  of 
Judea,  probably  near  Jericho.  That  the  place  of  depart- 
ure was  Galilee,  appears  from  its  express  mention  by  Mat- 
thew, and  also  from  the  "thence"  in  Mark,  which  obvi- 
ously refers  to  Capernaum,  mentioned  ix.  33.*  That  this 
was  the  final  departure,  appears  from  the  fact  that  no  other 
is  mentioned  after  it.  Indeed,  it  is  the  only  departure 
mentioned  by  them. 

In  Luke  (ix.  51)  we  find  mention  made  of  a  journey, 
which,  upon  the  face  of  it,  seems  to  have  been  the  last  to 
Jerusalem.  "And  it  came  to  pass,  when  the  time  was 
come  that  He  should  be  received  up,  He  steadfastly  set  His 
face  to  go  to  Jerusalem."  That  reference  is  here  made  to 
His  ascension  into  heaven,  rr^  avaXr/^cws  avrov,  admits  of  no 
reasonable  doubt.'  We  cannot,  from  the  phrase,  "  when 
the  time  was  come,"  €v  tu  (rvfnrXtjpoxxrOat  Tas  7;/Acpa9,  infer 
that  the  ascension  was  immediately  at  hand.  It  is  well 
translated  by  Norton  :  M  When  the  time  was  near  for  His 
being  received  into  heaven."  The  end  of  His  earthly  ca- 
reer, His  death,  His  resurrection,  and  His  ascension,  were 


1  For  the  8m  rov  r*pav  rov  loptavov,  Teschendorf  has  km  vtpav  rov 
lophavov.    So  Alford,  Meyer. 

*  Meyer,  Alexander. 

>  So  Meyer,  Robinson,  Lichtenstein,  Alford.  The  view  of  Wieseler,  (324,) 
followed  by  Lange,  that  His  being  received  up,  refers  to  His  favorable  recep- 
tion by  the  Galileans ;  and  that  the  meaning  of  the  passage  is,  when  He  no 
longer  found  Himself  received  in  Galilee,  He  left  that  province  and  went  up 
to  Jerusalem  to  labor  there,  is  very  arbitrary,  and  liuds  no  general  sup- 
port. 


348  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LOED. 

now  constantly  before  Him.  "  He  steadfastly  set  His  face 
to  go  to  Jerusalem."  This  was  the  goal  of  His  journey. 
If  He  visited  other  cities,  it  was  only  transiently,  and  on 
His  way  thither.  And  the  great  object  of  His  journey,  as 
revealed  unto  Himself,  was  not  to  teach  in  the  temple,  or 
be  present  at  a  feast,  but  to  finish  His  work,  to  die,  and 
then  ascend  to  God. 

These  words,  then,  seem  plainly  to  refer  to  a  final  de- 
parture from  Galilee.  They  are  inconsistent  with  the  sup- 
position that  the  Lord  returned  again,  to  resume  His  labors, 
after  a  brief  visit  at  Jerusalem.  But  here  great  difficulties 
meet  us.  Is  all  that  Luke  narrates,  from  ix.  51  to  xviii.  15, 
when  his  narrative  meets  those  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  an 
account  of  one  and  the  same  journey  to  Jerusalem  ?  This 
seems  to  be  so,  because  there  is  no  mention  of  any  other 
departure  from  Galilee,  and  Jerusalem  is  everywhere  men- 
tioned as  the  goal  toward  which  His  steps  are  steadily 
directed.  It  is  said,  in  the  only  distinct  notices  of  His 
movements  during  this  period,  (xiii.  22,)  that  "  He  went 
through  the  cities  and  villages,  teaching,  and  journeying 
toward  Jerusalem."  Again,  (xvii.  11  :)  "And  it  came  to 
pass,  as  He  went  to  Jerusalem,  that  He  passed  through  the 
midst  of  Samaria  and  Galilee."  This  express  mention  of 
the  fact  that  He  was  going  to  Jerusalem,  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  earlier  statement,  (ix.  51,)  that  "  He  stead- 
fastly set  His  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem,"  strongly  implies 
that  the  same  journey  is  meant.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  plain 
that  the  Evangelist  does  not  follow  a  chronological  order, 
as,  early  in  the  narrative,  (x.  38,)  He  enters  the  village  of 
Martha  and  Mary,  which  we  know  was  Bethany,  in  Judea, 
and  very  near  to  Jerusalem.1     Still  later  in  the  narrative, 

1  The  elaborate  dissertation  of  Greswell,  (ii.  545,)  to  show  that  this  was 
not  Bethany,  bnt  some  village  of  Galilee  not  named,  is  far  from  convincing. 
The  main  argument  is  drawn  from  a  "  singular  idiom  in  St.  John,  affecting 
the  use  of  the  prepositions  axo  and  e{ ; "  but  the  distinction  taken  is  not 
generally  recognized.    See  Meyer  in  loco;  Winer,  Gram.  326,  note  1. 


THE   LAST   JOURNEY    AS   NARRATED   BY    LUKE.  349 

(xvii.  11,)  the  Lord  appears  passing  through  the  midst,  or 
along  the  border  line,  of  Samaria  and  Galilee.  These  local 
notices  show  that  two  or  three  distinct  journeys  are  em- 
braced ;  or  that  if  one  only  be  meant,  and  that  continuous 
from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  the  Evrangelist  arranges  its 
events  by  another  order  than  that  of  time.  Both  these 
suppositions  have  their  advocates,  and  we  will  consider, 
briefly,  each  of  them. 

First.  Does  Luke  here  include  several  distinct  journeys  ? 
Many  harmonists  find  three,  but  are  not  wholly  agreed  as 
to  the  way  in  which  these  several  journeys  of  Luke  should 
be  connected  with  those  mentioned  by  the  other  Evange- 
lists. The  first  of  these  is,  according  to  some,  that  men- 
tioned in  ix.  51  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  whose  starting 
point  was  Galilee,  and  the  same  mentioned  in  John  vii.  10. 
The  second  is  that  mentioned  in  xiii.  22,  when  He  went  up 
some  two  months  later  to  the  feast  of  Dedication,  whose 
starting  point  was  Perea,  and  to  be  placed  in  John  x.  be- 
tween vs.  21,  22.  The  third  is  that  mentioned  in  xvii.  11, 
when  He  went  up  to  the  last  Passover,  whose  starting 
point  was  Ephraim,  (John  xi.  54.)  Wieseler  (321)  makes 
Luke  ix.  51  identical  with  John  vii.  10  ;  Luke  xiii.  22,  with 
John  xl  1-17  ;  and  Luke  xvii.  11,  with  the  last  journey  to 
the  Passover,  beginning  at  Ephraim,  John  xii.  1,  and 
referred  to  by  Matt.  xix.  1,  Mark  x.  1.  Kraflt  (107)  iden- 
tifies Luke  ix.  51  with  John  vii.  10.  After  the  feast  of  Tab- 
ernacles, Jesus  sends  out  the  Seventy  from  Jerusalem,  and 
follows  them  Himself,  in  a  circuit  through  Galilee  and  back 
to  Jerusalem,  before  the  feast  of  Dedication.  To  this  cir- 
cuit the  notices  in  Luke  xiii.  22  and  xvii.  11  refer.  To 
Luke  xvii.  11,  correspond  Matt.  xix.  1  and  Mark  x.  1.  Rob- 
inson (Har.  198)  also  identifies  Luke  ix.  51  with  John  vii. 
10,  but  refers  all,  from  xiii.  22 — xix.  1,  to  the  last  Passover 
journey,  beginning  at  Ephraim,  and  to  this  journey  refers 
Matt.  xix.  1,  and  Mark  x.  1. 


350  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LOED. 

As  we  see,  all  of  these  suppositions  identify  Luke  ix. 
51  and  John  vii.  10.  But  this  is  at  best  very  doubtful. 
Let  us  note  some  of  the  points  of  difference  :  1st,  In  Luke, 
Jesus  leaves  Galilee  for  the  last  time,  going  to  Jerusalem 
to  suffer.  In  John,  He  goes  thither  to  a  feast,  some  six 
months  before  His  death.  2d,  In  Luke,  He  goes  with  an 
unusual  degree  of  publicity,  accompanied  by  the  apostles, 
and  sending  messengers  before  Him  to  make  ready  for  Him. 
In  John,  He  "  went  up  unto  the  feast,  not  openly,  but  as  it 
were  in  secret."  3d,  In  Luke,  He  goes  slowly,  and  appar- 
ently made  a  wide  circuit,  passing  through  many  villages. 
In  John,  He  goes  rapidly  and  directly,  not  leaving  Galilee 
till  His  brethren  had  gone,  nor  showing  Himself  in  Jerusa- 
lem till  "  about  the  midst  of  the  feast."  The  only  impor- 
tant argument  in  favor  of  their  identity  is,  that  according 
to  Luke,  Jesus  proposed  to  go  through  Samaria,  which  is 
supposed  to  explain  John's  statement  that  He  went  up  "  as 
it  were  in  secret."  It  is  said  that  the  common  route  was 
through  Perea  on  the  east  side  of  Jordan,  and  He  therefore 
went  on  the  west  side,  through  Samaria.1  But  Josephus* 
says  expressly,  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Galileans  to 
pass  through  Samaria  on  the  way  to  the  feasts.  No  infer- 
ence, therefore,  that  this  was  a  secret  journey,  can  be  drawn 
from  this  fact.  We  conclude,  then,  that  Luke  and  John 
refer  to  different  journeys.* 

If  not  the  journey  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  to  what 
subsequent  journey  mentioned  by  John  does  Luke  refer  ? 
Was  it  to  the  feast  of  Dedication,  a  few  weeks  later  ? 
(John  x.  22.)  As  nothing  is  said  by  John  of  any  return 
to  Galilee  after  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  it  is  inferred  by 
many*    that  He   must  have   remained  till  Dedication  at 

»  Wieseler,  820.  *  Antiq.,  20.  6.  1. 

8  So  Meyer,  Alford,  De  Wette,  Riggenbach,  Greswell,  Neander,  Baum- 
garten. 

4  Robinson,  Meyer,  Alford.  Tbe  latter,  however,  expresses  himself  doubt- 
ingly 


THE  LAST  JOURNEY  AS  NARRATED  BY  LUKE.  351 

Jerusalem,  or  in  its  vicinity.  But  this  silence  respecting  a 
return  to  Galilee  by  no  means  shows  that  none  took  place. 
The  Evangelist  is  not  giving  a  chronological  outline  of 
events,  but  the  Lord's  discourses,  and  adds  only  those  his- 
torical facts  that  are  necessary  to  explain  them.1  It  is  said 
again,  that  at  the  feast  of  Dedication  (John  x.  26)  He  al- 
ludes to  His  words  spoken  at  an  earlier  period,  (x.  1-5,) 
from  which  it  is  inferred  that  no  long  interval  could  have 
elapsed,  and  that  His  auditors  must  have  been  in  both 
oases  the  same.'  But  two  months  is  not  so  long  an  inter- 
val that  His  words  could  have  been  forgotten,  especially  if 
He  had  immediately  after  left  the  city;  and  His  auditors  at 
both  feasts  were  in  part  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.' 
There  seems,  then,  no  need  to  suppose  that  His  discourse 
respecting  the  sheep  (x.  1-18)  was  spoken  just  before  the 
feast  of  Dedication,  and  that  He  had  therefore  continued  at 
Jerusalem  since  Tabernacles. 

Against  the  supposition  that  He  spent  this  interval  in 
Jerusalem  or  in  Judea,  is  the  statement  (John  vii.  1)  that 
*  He  would  not  walk  in  Jewry  because  the  Jews  sought  to 
kill  Him."  The  hatred  of  the  Jews  did  not  permit  Him  to 
remain  in  Judea  to  teach ;  and  on  this  ground  He  appears 
to  have  passed  by  several  of  the  feasts.  It  is  highly  im- 
probable, then,  that  after  the  reception  He  had  met  at  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles,  when  a  formal  attempt  was  made  to 
arrest  Him,  and  the  populace  had  taken  up  stones  to  stone 
Him,  He  should  have  remained  in  Judea  till  the  next  feast, 
exposed  to  their  machinations.4 

Again,  the  Lord  carried  on  no  public  work  in  Judea 
after  He  left  it  to  begin  His  Galilean  ministry.  So  far  as 
we  learn,  He  had  not  yet  entered  it  for  any  purpose  since 
the  feast,  (John  v.  1.)  That  He  had  not  been  into  Judea 
and  manifested  Himself  there,  was  the  basis  of  the  com- 

»  Riggenbacb,  421.  ■  Stier,  r.  485 ;  Meyer. 

•  See  Luthardt  in  loco  *  Luthardt,  ii.  74 ;  Liechtenstein,  299. 


352  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

plaints  of  His  brethren,  (vii.  3,  4.)  He  did  indeed  teach 
the  people  at  the  feasts  of  Tabernacles  and  of  Dedication, 
but,  so  far  as  appears,  only  in  the  temple.  If,  then,  Judea 
was  not  now  the  scene  of  His  labors,  and  nothing  is  said  of 
any  work  now  done  in  Perea,  we  conclude  that  He  re- 
turned to  Galilee,  where  His  work  was  not  yet  fully  ended. 

If,  then,  Jesus  returned  to  Galilee  after  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  and  the  journey  of  Luke  (ix.  51)  was  subse- 
quent to  this  feast,  can  we  identify  it  as  the  journey  to  the 
feast  of  Dedication  ?  But  before  this  point  can  be  consid- 
ered, it  will  be  necessary  to  examine  what  is  said  of  the  mis- 
sion of  the  Seventy,  (Luke  x.  1-1 7,)  in  its  bearings  upon  the 
Lord's  own  labors  during  this  last  journey. 

We  are  told  that,  "  After  these  things  the  Lord  ap- 
pointed other  seventy  also,  and  sent  them  two  and  two 
before  His  face  into  every  city  and  place,  whither  He  Him- 
self would  come."  This  plainly  shows  that  they  were  to 
act  as  His  forerunners  or  heralds  upon  the  journey  He  was 
about  to  undertake ;  and  this  journey  can  be  no  other  than 
that  mentioned,  (ix.  51,)  or  His  last  journey  from  Galilee. 
It  shows,  also,  that  the  route  was  determined  upon;  for 
where  He  designed  to  come,  they  should  precede  Him,  and 
whither  they  went  and  found  reception,  there  He  should 
follow  them.  Thus  their  movements  were  arranged  with 
reference  to  His.  As  they  were  to  go  two  and  two,  they 
could  easily  in  a  short  time  visit  a  large  number  of  cities. 
If  each  couple  visited  but  one,  this  would  make  thirty-five, 
and  it  therefore  follows  that  His  journey,  following  on  their 
steps,  must  have  occupied  a  considerable  period  of  time. 

The  end  for  which  this  large  deputation  was  sent  forth, 
was,  as  expressed  in  their  commission,  to  heal  the  sick,  and 
to  proclaim  the  kingdom  of  God  at  hand ;  and  thus  prepare 
the  way  for  the  Lord,  who  was  to  follow  them.  But  what 
was  the  significance  of  this  proclamation  ?  Was  it  merely 
a  repetition  of  what  had  been  preached  by  John  the  Baptist, 


MEANING    OF   THE   MISSION    OF   THE   SEVENTY.  353 

by  the  Lord,  and  by  the  apostles  ?  Did  it  not  rather  de- 
rive a  peculiar  character  from  the  relations  in  which  the 
mission  stood  to  the  Lord's  subsequent  journey?  They 
were  not  to  go  to  every  part  of  the  land,  but  only  to  those 
cities  u  where  He  Himself  would  come."  We  may,  there- 
fore, well  infer  that  they  did  not  merely  announce  in  gen- 
eral terms  the  Messianic  kingdom,  but  made  specific  men- 
tion of  Jesus,  who  was  to  follow  them,  as  the  Messiah. 
"  They  were  only  to  give  notice  that  the  Messiah  was  com- 
ing, and  that  in  those  places  only  to  which  He  was  to 
come." '  It  was  not  merely  the  proclamation  of  the  king- 
dom, but  also  the  proclamation  of  the  King.  Jesus  was 
soon  to  follow  on  His  way  to  Jerusalem,  and  thus 'the  eyes 
of  all  were  turned  to  Him,  not  as  a  great  Teacher,  or 
Prophet,  but  as  the  long  promised  Son  of  David  and  Re- 
deemer of  Israel. 

Some,  however,  have  questioned  whether  this  sending 
of  the  Seventy  can  be  brought  into  immediate  chronologi- 
cal connection  with  the  journey  of  Luke,  (ix.  51.)  It  is 
said  that  the  latter  refers  to  His  journey  to  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  and  that  the  Seventy  were  not  sent  till  after 
His  return  from  this  feast  to  Galilee.  But  this  is  wholly 
untenable.  We  cannot  suppose  that  after  the  Evangelist 
had  said  in  so  emphatio  a  manner,  that  He  steadfastly  set 
I  lis  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  and  sent  messengers  before 
Him,  he  should  pass  over  in  entire  silence  its  further  prose- 
cution, His  arrival  at  Jerusalem,  and  His  return  to  Galilee, 
and  then,  without  the  least  hint  of  it,  begin  the  recital  of 
another  journey.  We  conclude,  then,  that  the  sending  of 
the  Seventy  was  very  soon  after  the  rejection  of  the  mes- 
sengers whom  He  had  sent  into  Samaria. 

We  may  now  ask  what  light  this  mission  casts  upon 
the  direction  and  time  of  the  Lord's  last  journey.    And 

•  Lightfoot  in  loco. 


354  THE  LIFE   OP    OUR   LORD. 

first,  as  to  its  direction.  Where  were  the  Seventy  sent  ? 
Some  say  to  Samaria.1  This  destination  has  some  support 
in  the  fact  that  they,  unlike  the  Twelve,  were  not  forbidden 
to  enter  Samaria  and  the  heathen  cities ;  and  also  that  the 
number  seventy  may  have  had  some  symbolic  reference  to 
the  heathen  nations.  But  it  is,  nevertheless,  intrinsically 
improbable.  It  was  to  give  the  largest  publicity  to  His 
own  Messianic  claims  that  Jesus  now  sent  them  forth. 
They  were  simply  to  announce  the  kingdom  of  God  at  hand, 
and  thus  the  very  nature  of  their  mission  limited  it  to  those 
who  were  already  familiar  with  the  ideas  which  that  an- 
nouncement involved.  Besides,  He  had  been  already  re- 
jected in*  Samaria  by  the  rejection  of  His  former  messen- 
gers, (Luke  ix.  53,)  whose  office  it  was  not,  indeed,  to 
preach  or  to  heal,  but  who  had  preceded  Him,  as  servants  pre- 
cede a  prince,  to  see  that  all  is  ready  for  His  fitting  reception. 
Did  He  send  them  into  Judea  ?  This  is  in  itself  very 
probable.  Although  for  a  considerable  period  He  had  not 
walked  in  Jewry,  because  fche  Jews  sought  to  kill  Him,  yet 
this  would  not  prevent  Him  from  now  sending  to  that 
province  His  messengers,  that  perchance  it  might  yet  re- 
pent. If  His  life  had  been  repeatedly  threatened  at  Jeru- 
salem, still  other  cities  might  be  more  favorably  disposed, 
and  through  the  proclamations  of  His  heralds,  the  way  be 
prepared  for  Himself.  The  number  seventy,  also,  seems 
to  have  some  symbolic  reference  to  the  seventy  elders  of 
Israel,  (Ex.  xxiv.  9  ;  Num.  xi.  24,)  implying  a  general  visi- 
tation. Still,  it  is  not  said  by  any  of  the  Evangelists  that 
He  visited  any  part  of  Judea  except  that  lying  between 
the  Jordan  and  Jerusalem.  It  may  be  that  His  purpose  at 
first  was  to  enter  Judea  by  Samaria,  but  being  rejected 
upon  the  border,  He  journeyed  into  Perea,  designing  thus 
to  enter  it ;  but  His  life  being  endangered  when  He  reached 

1  Wieseler,  326,  note  1 ;  Lange. 


WHITHEB   THE   SEVENTY   WERE   SENT.  355 

Jerusalem,  He  turned  back  again  to  Perea.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  all  definite  statements,  great  uncertainty  rests  upon 
the  point  whether  any  of  the  Seventy  actually  visited 
Judea ;  and  if  they  did  so,  what  reception  they  met,  and 
whether  they  were  followed  by  the  Lord. 

Did  He  send  them  into  Galilee  ?  This  is  possible,  if  we 
suppose  Him  to  have  sent  them  from  Capernaum,  and  in 
such  direction  that,  in  following  them,  He  should  be  going 
toward  Jerusalem.  Most  parts  of  Galilee,  however,  He  had 
doubtless  already  visited,  and  that  He  did  not  design  to  visit 
them  again  may  be  inferred  from  the  woes  He  pronounced 
upon  Chorazin,  Bethsaida,  and  Capernaum,  (Luke  x.  13- 
15  ;)  nor  is  there  mention  made  of  any  Galilean  village. 

That  the  chief  scene  of  the  labors  of  the  Seventy  was 
in  Perea,  is  apparent.1  This  province  was  under  the  juris- 
diction of  Herod,  and  here  was  offered  them  the  same  free- 
dom of  action  that  Jesus  had  had  up  to  this  time  in  Galilee. 
It  was  also  a  part  of  the  country  that  He  had  but  little  visit- 
ed, and  the  road  along  the  Jordan  was  a  much-travelled 
thoroughfare  to  Jerusalem. 

The  names  of  none  of  the  cities  visited  by  the  Seventy, 
and  afterward  by  the  Lord,  are  given,  and  we  cannot  there- 
fore tell  how  wide  a  circuit  He  may  have  taken.  It  is 
probable  that  they  were  sent  to  the  larger  towns,  perhaps 
to  those  lying  nearest  the  ordinary  route  to  Jerusalem. 

Second.  When  were  the  Seventy  sent  ?  Many,  identi- 
fying Luke  ix.  51  and  John  vii.  10,  say,  just  before  the  feast 
of  Tabernacles,  and  before  Jesus  had  left  Galilee.'  Others, 
after  He  had  left  Galilee  and  while  on  His  way  to  Jerusa- 
lem to  this  feast.'  But,  as  we  have  seen,  the  character  of 
that  journey  to  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  forbids  that  He 
could  have  been  preceded  by  such  a  deputation}  some, 

1  So  Liechtenstein,  Robinson. 

•  Newcome,  Townsend,  Robinson,  Strong. 

»  Lightfoot  Friedlieb,  Wieseler. 


356  THE  LIFE  OP    OUR  LORD. 

therefore,  would  make  them  to  have  been  sent  from  Jeru- 
salem, or  from  Judea,  soon  after  the  feast  of  Tabernacles, 
and  before  that  of  Dedication.  But  this  implies  that  the 
interval  between  the  feasts  was  spent  in  Judea,  which  is 
untenable  ;  nor  is  it  at  all  consistent  with  the  object  of  the 
mission  that  the  Lord  should  follow  them  away  from  Jeru- 
salem. Many,  who  make  Him  to  have  returned  to  Galilee 
after  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  place  the  sending  before  the 
following  feast  of  Dedication,  and  while  He  was  on  the 
way  to  Jerusalem  through  Perea.1  This  period  has  much 
in  its  favor.  The  last  journey  was  through  Perea,  (Matt, 
xix.  1  ;  Mark  x.  1.)  He  was  attended  by  great  multitudes, 
(Matt.  xix.  2 ;  Luke  xii.  1.)  He  resumed  there  the  work 
of  teaching  the  people,  which  for  a  time  He  had  suspended, 
(Mark  x.  1.)  He  goes  not  directly  forward,  but  in  a  circuit 
through  cities  and  villages,  yet  always  making  progress 
toward  Jerusalem,  (Luke  xiii.  22.)  Reaching  the  borders 
of  Judea  as  the  time  came  to  celebrate  the  feast  of  Dedica- 
tion, He  goes  up  to  Jerusalem.  His  appearance  there 
seems  to  have  been  unexpected,  perhaps  from  the  fact  that 
it  was  winter,  when  few  journeyed  from  a  distance  ;  but  the 
rumor  that  He  was  now  more  openly  presenting  His  Mes- 
sianic claims  through  the  mission  of  the  Seventy,  had  ap- 
parently reached  the  Jews,  for  they  immediately  demand 
of  Him  that  He  should  tell  them  plainly  whether  He  is  the 
Christ.  They  would  learn  it  from  His  own  lips.  Forced 
to  flee  from  their  wrath,  He  recrosses  the  Jordan,  and  in 
that  part  of  the  district  of  Perea,  where  John  at  first  bap- 
tized, He  took  up  His  abode.  As  many  had  followed  Him 
upon  His  journey,  so  many  resorted  to  Him  here,  till  He 
was  called  to  Bethany,  near  Jerusalem,  by  the  death  of  Laz- 
arus. After  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  He  is  compelled 
to  hide  Himself  at  Ephraim  till  the  Passover  came.    Thus 

1  Teschendorf,  Lichtenstein,  Neander,  Alford,  Milman,  Oosterzee,  Riggen- 
bach. 


TIME  WHEN  THE  SEVENTY   WERE  SENT.  35  *J 

this  last  journey  was  not  wholly  continuous.  It  was  inter- 
rupted by  a  period  after  the  Dedication  spent  in  Perea, 
which,  however,  seems  to  have  been  a  period  of  activity, 
and  later  by  a  sojourn  at  Ephraim,  where  He  apparently 
devoted  Himself  wholly  to  His  disciples.  But  leaving 
Ephraim  as  the  pilgrims  begin  to  gather  to  attend  the  Pass- 
over, He  joins  them  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Jordan, 
and  the  journey  ends  with  the  same  publicity  with  which  it 
began.  Attended  by  the  multitude,  He  enters  Jericho, 
and  from  hence  He  goes  to  Jerusalem  in  triumphal  pro- 
cession. Thus  the  last  journey  of  the  Lord  preserves 
its  uniformity  of  character,  from  the  commencement  to  the 
close. 

Some,  however,  would  place  this  journey  after  the  feast 
of  Dedication.  But  when,  after  this  feast,  did  Jesus  return 
to  Galilee  ?  Was  it  when,  the  Jews  having  sought  to  take 
Him,  He  escaped  out  of  their  hand?  (John  x.  39.)'  "When, 
however,  we  consider  how  continuously  the  narrative  pro- 
ceeds, there  is  no  place  for  a  return  to  Galilee.  The  Evan- 
gelist says :  "  He  escaped  out  of  their  hand,  and  went  away 
again  beyond  Jordan,  into  the  place  where  John  at  first 
baptized,  and  there  He  abode."  To  insert  between  this 
escape  and  the  departure  beyond  Jordan,  a  journey  to  Gal- 
ilee and  a  return,  is  very  arbitrary ;  and  the  more,  that  the 
syntax  suggests  immediate  chronological  sequence,  the  verb, 
v.  40,  finding  its  subject  in  v.  39.  It  was  not  from  Galilee 
that  He  went  away  beyond  Jordan,  but  from  Jerusalem, 
so  far  as  appears  from  the  narrative.  Beyond  Jordan  He 
abides,  till  summoned  by  the  sisters  of  Lazarus  to  Bethany. 
Immediately  after  the  miracle  there  He  retires  to  Ephraim. 

Can  we,  then,  place  this  last  journey  after  the  sojourn  in 
Ephraim,  as  is  done  by  Greswell  ?  We  are  told  that  "  He 
there  continued  with  His  disciples,"  (John  xi.  54.)     The 

1  Stier,  Baumgarten. 


358  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

retirement  of  Jesus  thither  being  to  escape  the  notice  of 
the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees,  who  had  determined  to  put 
Him  to  death,  (vs.  47-54,)  and  who  "  had  given  a  com- 
mandment that,  if  u  any  man  knew  where  He  were,  he 
should  show  it,  that  they  might  take  Him,"  there  is  a  strong 
improbability  that  He  would  attract  public  attention  to 
Himself  by  making  excursions  to  teach,  or  to  heal.  While 
nothing  is  said  of  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  labors  in  Epbra- 
im,  the  mention  of  the  fact  that  He  continued  there  with 
His  disciples,  intimates  that  to  them  was  His  time  devoted. 
It  is  not  distinctly  said  when  He  left  Ephraim  for  Jerusa- 
lem, but  the  impression  made  by  the  narrative,  is  that  it 
was  a  very  short  time  before  the  Passover.  Of  the  route, 
the  Evangelist  says  nothing,  except  that  six  days  before 
the  Passover  He  came  to  Bethany,  (xii.  1.)  If,  however, 
He  went  first  to  Galilee,  and  then,  sending  out  the  Seventy, 
awaited  their  return,  and  followed  upon  their  steps  through 
Perea  to  Jericho  and  Bethany,  He  must  have  left  Ephraim 
a  considerable  time  before  the  Passover.  Greswell  (ii.  529) 
finds  in  this  no  difficulty,  as  he  supposes  Him  to  have 
reached  that  city  about  the  end  of  December,  and  to  have 
remained  there  a  month,  or  to  the  end  of  January.  Two 
months  would  thus  remain  for  the  last  journey.1 

Against  this  attempt  to  show  that  the  Lord  went  from 
Ephraim  back  to  Galilee,  the  language  of  Luke  (ix.  51-53) 
forms  a  strong  objection.  The  Samaritans  "  did  not  receive 
Him  because  His  face  was  as  though  He  would  go  to  Jeru- 
salem." The  answer,  that  this  does  not  refer  to  the  direc- 
tion of  His  journey,  but  to  His  purpose  in  undertaking  it, 
is  forced  and  unsatisfactory.  It  is  plain  that  He  was  in 
Galilee  when  He  sent  messengers  to  the  Samaritan  village. 
He  must,  then,  previously  have  left  Ephraim,  and  gone 
into  Galilee,  of  which  journey  nothing  is  said.    This  is  not 

1  See  also  Robinson,  Har.  202. 


THE  JOURNEY  FROM  EPHRAIM  TO  BETHANY.     359 

impossible,  but  it  does  not  find  any  support  in  John  or 
Luke. 

If,  then,  we  cannot,  with  Greswell,  put  all  the  Lord's 
last  journey,  beginning  with  Luke  ix.  51,  after  the  sojourn 
at  Ephraim,  can  we  thus  put  any  part  of  it  ?  Robinson 
here  inserts  all  following  Luke  xiii.  10.  But  this  arrange- 
ment, which  he  supposes  to  be  presented,  "  perhaps,  for  the 
first  time,"  meets  none  of  the  difficulties  arising  from  the 
neglect  of  chronological  order  by  Luke  ;  nor  is  there  any- 
thing in  the  narrative  that  leads  us  to  suppose  any  such 
change  of  place.  The  view  that  Luke  (xvii.  11)  refers  to 
His  departure  from  Ephraim,  is  much  better  supported. 
The  statement  of  the  Evangelist :  "  And  it  came  to  pass 
as  He  went  to  Jerusalem  that  He  passed  through  the  midst 
of  Samaria  and  Galilee,"  may  be  variously  interpreted. 
Jerusalem  was  the  goal,  but  what  was  the  starting  point  ? 
If  the  language  means  that  He  passed  across  these  prov- 
inces, first  Samaria  and  then  Galilee,  journeying  northward, 
He  could  not  have  been  in  Galilee,  or  in  Perea,  or  in  Sa- 
maria ;  He  must  then  have  been  in  Judea,  But  to  reach 
Jerusalem  from  Judea,  why  pass  through  Samaria  ?  If  we 
make  Ephraim  the  starting  point,  and  assume  that  this  city 
was  near  the  south  border  line  of  Samaria,  we  can  suppose 
that  He  passed  northward  till  He  reached  the  frontier 
of  Galilee,  and  proceeding  along  the  frontier  eastward, 
crossed  the  Jordan,  and  entered  Perea.1  In  this  case  the 
Lord  did  not  travel  in  Galilee,  or  perform  any  ministry 
there,  so  that  His  former  departure  (ix.  51)  may  be  said  to 
have  been  the  last.  But  can  this  passage  along  the  fron- 
tier be  identified  with  that  departure,  of  which  Matthew 
(xix.  1)  and  Mark  (x.  1)  speak?  From  the  very  definite 
notice  of  place  which  the  latter  gives,  "  And  He  arose  from 

»  That  the  expression,  "Through  the  midst  of  Samaria  and  Galilee," 
iia  fjLtcrov  lafiapttas  kou  Ta\i\aias,  may  be  thus  understood,  is  generally 
admitted.     So  Bengel,  Meyer,  Norton,  Alford,  Lichtenstein,  Trench. 


360  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD. 

thence,"  we  infer  that  this  departure  was  from  Capernaum, 
not  from  Ephraim.  Jesus  must  then  have  gone  from 
Ephraim  back  to  Capernaum,  and  thence  have  commenced 
His  journey.  But  the  language  (Luke  ix.  51)  implies  that 
He  then  left  Galilee  for  the  last  time.  The  words,  also,  of 
Matthew  and  Mark  plainly  intimate,  that  the  Lord  had  con- 
tinued His  labors  in  Galilee  down  to  the  departure  of  which 
they  speak.  Thus,  we  conclude  that  Luke  ix.  51  (not  xvii.  11) 
is  parallel  with  Matt.  xix.  1,  and  Mark  x.  1.  The  latter  Evan- 
gelists, omitting  most  that  took  place  during  the  journey, 
come  again  (Matt.  xix.  13  ;  Mark  x.  13)  into  unison  with 
Luke,  (xviii.  15  ;)  and  from  this  point  the  narratives  men- 
tion, for  the  most  part,  the  same  particulars.  If  we  make 
Matt.  xix.  1,  and  Mark  x.  1,  parallel  with  Luke  ix.  51,  it 
is  not,  however,  necessary  to  refer  the  narratives  of  the  for- 
mer to  what  took  place  in  the  beginning  of  the  journey. 
All  that  they  tell  us,  may  have  taken  place  after  the  Lord 
left  Ephraim,  and  while  in  Perea. 

We  come,  then,  to  the  conclusion  that  Luke's  words, 
(ix.  51,)  "  He  steadfastly  set  His  face  to  go  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem," refer  to  the  Lord's  final  departure  from  Galilee ;  and 
that  most  of  the  events  he  relates  from  this  point  to  chap, 
xviii.  15,  where  his  narrative  becomes  parallel  with  those 
of  Matthew  and  Mark,  took  place  during  this  journey. 
"We  find  no  ground  to  believe,  that  after  this  departure  He 
again  visited  Galilee.  He  did  not,  indeed,  go  directly  to 
Jerusalem,  as  He  was  preceded  by  the  Seventy,  and  His 
course  was  determined  by  the  reception  they  met;  nor, 
when  He  reached  Jerusalem,  could  He  abide  there,  but  was 
forced  to  flee,  first  to  Perea,  and  afterward  to  Ephraim. 
These  flights  the  Synoptists  do  not  mention,  and  we  learn 
from  them  no  more  than  that  He  went  to  Jerusalem  by 
way  of  Perea. 

If,  then,  all  of  Luke's  account  refers  to  one  and  the 
same  journey,  it  follows  that  he  does  not  relate  in  exact 


JESUS   SENDS   MESSENGERS  INTO   SAMARIA.  361 

chronological  order ;  nor  does  it  appear  by  what  principle 
he  is  governed  in  his  arrangement.  The  various  theories 
which  have  been  presented,  we  must  here  pass  by.  That 
in  the  main  the  order  is  historical,  is  probable. 

Comparing  Luke  with  the  other  Evangelists,  we  mark 
the  following  points  of  identification  :  Luke  ix.  51,  and 
Matt.  xix.  1,  and  Mark  x.  1  ;  Luke  xvii.  11,  and  the  journey 
from  Ephraim,  John  xi.  55.  Where,  in  Luke's  account,  the 
visit  to  the  feast  of  Dedication  (John  x.  22)  is  to  be  placed, 
is  not  apparent.  In  the  absence  of  all  definite  data,  we 
shall  assume  that  his  statement  (xiii.  22)  is  to  be  referred  to 
the  period  immediately  preceding  this  feast,  and  that  all 
from  chap.  xiv.  to  xvii.  10  may  have  taken  place  after  Jesus' 
return  to  Perea,  (John  x.  40.) 

What  determined  the  Lord  to  take  the  route  through 
Samaria  rather  than  through  Perea,  upon  this  His  last  jour- 
ney, we  cannot  tell.  Perhaps  it  may  have  been  the  favor- 
able reception  which  He  had  before  met  from  the  Samari- 
tans, (John  iv.  39-42,)  or  that  He  desired  to  take  the  most 
direct  route  into  Judea.  That  He  should  send  messengers 
before  Him,  is  to  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  this  jour- 
ney was  of  great  publicity.  Whether  u  to  make  ready  for 
Him,"  croi/xao-cu  avrw,  means  simply  to  prepare  lodgings  for 
Him,  as  most  suppose,  may  be  questioned.  It  seems  much 
more  to  have  had  reference  to  the  announcement  that  the 
Messiah  was  at  hand,  and  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  vil- 
lage should  prepare  themselves  to  receive  Him  with  all  the 
external  marks  of  respect  that  befitted  His  high  dignity. 
But  a  Messiah  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  was  a  stumbling-block 
to  the  Samaritans,  and  they  would  not  receive  Him,  ovk 
cSc^ukto  avrov.  (Compare  John  iv.  45.)  This  rejection  of 
Himself  in  the  persons  of  His  messengers,  was  perhaps  a 
divine  intimation  to  Him  that  He  should  not  go  to  Jerusa- 
lem through  Samaria,  but  through  Perea.1     Who  these 

1  See  Lichtenstein,  816. 
16 


362  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

messengers  were,  is  not  known.  The  anger  manifested  by 
James  and  John,  has  led  some,  as  A.  Clarke,  to  suppose 
that  Jesus  had  sent  them,  and  that  they  felt  the  rejection 
as  a  personal  insult ;  but  for  this  there  is  no  sufficient 
ground.  The  lofty  and  impetuous  language  of  the  two, 
"Wilt  Thou  that  we  command  fire  to  come  down  from 
Heaven  and  consume  them  ?  "  clearly  intimates,  however, 
that  a  new  stage  in  the  Lord's  work  had  come ;  and  that 
these  disciples,  elated  with  the  hope  that  He  was  now 
about  to  assert  His  kingly  claims,  were  ready  to  punish 
in  the  severest  manner  all  who  refused  Him  Messianic 
honors. 

From  this  village  they  went  to  another,  (Luke  ix.  56.) 
It  is  not  wholly  clear  whether  the  latter  was  in  Samaria,  or 
Galilee.  The  presumption  is  that  it  was  in  Galilee.1  There 
is  no  mention  of  any  new  messengers,  nor  any  further  allu- 
sion to  the  Samaritans.  The  village  where  He  was  rejected 
is  conjectured  by  Lichtenstein  (318)  to  have  been  Ginnea 
or  Jenin,  situated  upon  the  border  of  Samaria  and  Galilee, 
and  overlooking  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.  It  is  mentioned 
by  Josephus.8  From  thence  the  Lord  would  pass  eastward 
to  the  Jordan,  and  thus  enter  Perea. 

Luke  (vs.  57-60)  mentions,  in  connection  with  this 
journey,  the  incidents  which  Matthew  (viii.  19-22)  men- 
tions as  taking  place  just  before  the  journey  to  Gergesa ; 
and  adds  also  another  of  like  kind.  As  it  is  very  improbable 
that  events,  so  remarkably  similar,  should  have  occurred 
twice  ;  and  as  it  is  impossible  to  tell  which  of  the  Evangel- 
ists relates  most  accurately,*  we  have  followed  the  order  of 
Matthew  in  regard  to  the  incidents  which  he  and  Luke 

1  Meyer,  Lichtenstein.  *  Antiq.,  20.  6.  1. 

s.In  favor  of  Matthew  most,  as  Meyer,  Bleek,  Lange,  Lichtenstein;  of 
Luke,  Tischendorf ;  Alford,  undecided.  That  the  followers  of  Jesus  hero 
spoken  of  were  Judas  Iscariot,  Thomas,  and  Matthew,  is  a  mere  fancy  of 

Lange. 


JESUS  JOURNEYS   IN   PEREA.  363 

relate  in  common,  and  insert  here  what  Luke  alone  relates, 
(vs.  61,  62.) 


Nov.  782.     a.  d.  29. 

During  the  journey  through  Perea,  the  Lord  is  at-    Matt.  xix.  2. 
tended  by  great  multitudes,  whom  He  teaches  and  heals.     Mark  x.  1. 
Upon  the  way  He  is  tempted  by  a  lawyer,  who  asks  Him    Luke  x.  25-37. 
how  he  shall,  inherit  eternal  life.     In  reply,  He  relates  the 
parable  of  the  good  Samaritan.   One  of  His  disciples  asks    Lckk  xi.  1-13. 
for  a  form  of  prayer.     He  gives  Him  the  form,  and  adds 
some  remarks  on  the  right  method  of  prayer. 

It  is  not  improbable,  as  has  been  already  observed,  that 
the  popularity  of  the  Lord  had  somewhat  diminished  in 
Galilee  before  His  final  departure,  in  part  through  tho 
open  and  active  hostility  of  the  Pharisees,  in  part  that  tne 
novelty  of  His  appearance  had  passed  by,  and  in  part 
through  the  increasingly  repellent  character  of  His  teach- 
ings. But  He  was  now  entering  upon  a  field  of  labor  al- 
most new,  and  yet  prophetically  foretold — prepay  tov  Ioo- 
Bavov,  "  beyond  Jordan."  Comparatively  few  in  Perea,  we 
may  believe,  had  seen  or  heard  Him ;  and  the  announce- 
ment of  the  Seventy  that  He  was  about  to  follow  them, 
would  naturally  call  general  attention  to  His  movements, 
and  gather  great  crowds  around  Him.  It  is  apparent,  also, 
that  the  peculiar  character  of  this  journey  gave  new  im- 
pulse to  the  prevalent  Messianic  expectations.  It  is  men- 
tioned by  Matthew,  (xix.  2,)  in  general  terms,  that  He  healed, 
but  no  specific  cases  are  given.  Mark  speaks  only  of 
teaching. 

We  have  no  data  to  determine  when  the  inquiry  of  the 
lawyer  was  made.  It  may  have  been  early  in  the  journey, 
whilst  the  Lord  was  yet  on  the  border  of  Samaria ;  and  His 
reply  derives  a  special  significance  from  the  fact  that  Ho 


364  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

Himself  had  just  been  rejected  by  the  Samaritans.  Still,  the 
bitter  hostility  of  the  Jews  to  the  Samaritans  would  have 
given  point  to  the  parable,  wherever  He  may  have  been. 

Luke  (xi.  1)  introduces  the  request  for  a  form  of  prayer, 
with  the  remark,  that  "  as  He  was  praying  in  a  certain 
place,  when  He  ceased,  one  of  His  disciples  saidunto  Him," 
<fcc.  From  this  it  has  been  inferred  by  some,  as  Oosterzee, 
that  the  incident  stands  here  in  its  historical  connection, 
and  is  inserted  by  Matthew  out  of  its  place  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  (vi.  9-13.)  It  certainly  appears  more  prob- 
able that  it  should  be  given  in  answer  to  a  disciple  than 
to  the  multitude ;  and  if  it  had  been  spoken  on  that  occa- 
sion, it  might  have  simply  been  referred  to  here.  Still, 
many,  as  Meyer,  make  it  to  have  been  original  in  Matthew, 
and  repeated  here  ;  and  others,  as  Alford,  that  it  stands  in 
close  connection  with  what  goes  before  in  both  Evangelists. 
Tholuck  takes  the  distinction,  that  in  the  first  instance  it 
was  generally  given,  but  in  the  latter  as  a  specific  form. 
The  difference  of  expression  in  the  two  cases  is  explained 
by  the  fact  that  Luke  gives  here,  as  often,  a  less  complete 
report  of  Christ's  words. 


Nov.— Dec.  782.     a.  d*29. 

The  Lord  heals  a  dumb  possessed  man.     The  Phari-    Luxx  xL  14-26. 
sees  accuse  Him  of  casting  out  devils  through  Beelzebub. 
He  replies  to  them,  and  while  He  is  speaking  a  woman 
in  the  crowd  blesses  Him.     He  continues  to  discourse  to        ••     xi.  27-86. 
the  multitude  on  the  desire  for  signs.     He  dines  with  a 
Pharisee,  and  sharply  rebukes  Pharisaical  hypocrisy.        M    xi.  37-54. 
The  Pharisees  are  greatly  enraged,  and  He  proceeds  to        "     xiL  1-12. 
address  the  disciples,  admonishing  them  to  beware  of 
the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  and  to  fear  God  only.    One        "     xiL  13-22. 
of  those  present  desires  of  Him  that  He  will  make  his 
brother  divide  the  inheritance  with  him.     He  denies  his 


JESUS   DINES   WITH   A  PHABISEE.  365 

request,  and  speaks  the  parable  of  the  rich  fool.     He    Luke  xii.  22-53. 

admonishes  the  disciples  to  watch  for  the  coming  of  the 

Son  of  Man,  and,  after  answering  a  question  of  Peter, 

proceeds  to  address  the  people  respecting  their  inability        "     xii.  64-59. 

to  discern  the  signs  of  the  times. 

The  relation  of  this  miracle  of  the  dumb  possessed,  and 
of  the  discourse  following  it,  to  the  healing  mentioned  by 
Matthew,  (xii.  22,)  and  the  discourse  there  given,  has  been 
already  discussed.  Most  agree  that  Luke  has  placed  them 
here  out  of  their  historical  connections.1  Tischendorf 
identifies  this  healing  with  the  miracle  in  Matt.  ix.  32-34, 
but  regards  it  rightly  placed  here.  Greswell  strongly  in- 
sists that  this  account  is  wholly  distinct  from  those  in  Mat- 
thew and  Mark.  It  being  impossible  to  come  to  any  cer- 
tain result,  we  shall  follow  Luke's  order,  assuming  that 
Matthew  relates  other  cases  of  healing  and  another  dis- 
course. In  regard  to  the  rebukes  of  the  Pharisees  by  the 
Lord,  spoken  at  the  house  of  a  Pharisee,  (vs.  37-52,)  we 
cite  the  just  observation  of  Alford,  that  He  "  spoke  at 
this  meal  parts  of  that  discourse  with  which  He  aflerward 
solemnly  closed  His  public  ministry." 

That  Jesus  should  have  been  invited  by  a  Pharisee  to 
dine  with  him,  or  rather  to  breakfast  with  him,  when  the 
sect  in  general  was  so  hostile  to  Him,  may  have  been  owing 
to  the  desire  to  have  one  so  famous  for  a  guest,  or  perhaps 
to  a  true  impulse  of  hospitality.  The  severity  of  His 
language  seems  directed  rather  against  Pharisaism  than 
against  the  individuals  then  present,  except  so  far  as  their 
consciences  should  compel  a  self-application.  The  sins  are 
rebuked  which  were  characteristic  of  that  party.  The 
lawyer  (v.  45)  seems  to  make  a  distinction  between  his 
class  and  the  Pharisees  in  general,  as  if  the  former  were  a 
kind  of  higher  order,  a  learned  aristocracy.    That  the  Lord 

*  So  Robinson,  Alford,  Licbtenstein. 


866  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB  LORD. 

touched  his  hearers  to  the  quick,  is  apparent  from  their 
vehement  attempts  to  entangle  Him  by  their  questions. 

It  would  seem  that  immediately  after  the  rebuke  of  the 
Pharisees,  the  Lord  admonished  His  disciples  to  beware  of 
their  hypocrisy,  and  added  other  injunctions,  (xii.  1-12.) 
But  as  His  words  are  given  by  Matthew  in  other  relations, 
which  seem  historical, we  must  suppose  either  that  He  repeats 
sayings  earlier  spoken,  or  that  Luke  connects  them  with 
this  occasion,  disregarding  the  order  of  events.  This  re- 
mark also  applies  to  all  from  v.  22  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.1 

The  request  of  one  of  the  company,  that  the  Lord  should 
speak  to  his  brother  to  divide  the  inheritance  with  him, 
and  the  following  parable  of  the  rich  fool,  are  mentioned 
only  by  Luke.  The  request  shows  how  much  the  attention 
of  men  was  turned  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  this  fact 
doubtless  greatly  inflamed  the  hostility  of  the  Pharisees. 


Nov.— Dec.  782.     a.  d.  29, 

Being  told  of  the  murder  of  the  Galileans  by  Pilate,     Luke  xiii.  1-9. 
He  replies,  and  adds  a  parable  respecting  the  fig  tree. 
Whilst  teaching  in  the  synagogue  upon  the  Sabbath,  He    Lukjc  xiii.  10-17. 
heals  a  woman  who  had  been  sick  eighteen  years.     He 
is  rebuked  for  this  by  the  master  of  the  synagogue,  but 
puts  him  to  shame.     He  continues  nis  journey  toward 
Jerusalem,  and  replies  to  the  question  of  one  who  asked     Luki  xiii  22-35. 
Him,  Are  there  few  that  be  saved  ?    The  same  day  He 
is  warned  by  certain  Pharisees  against  Herod. 

Of  these  Galileans,  so  murdered  by  Pilate,  we  have  no 
other  mention,  and  cannot  tell  when  the  event  occurred. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  was  at  Jerusalem,  and 
during  a  feast.'    The  relations  of  Pilate  to  the  Jews  were 

»  See  Oosterzee  in  loco ;  also  Alford. 

1  See  analogous  cases  in  Josephus,  Antiq.  17.  9  and  10. 


JESUS   HEALS  AN  INFIRM  WOMAN.  367 

sach  as  to  make  this  act  of  cruelty  highly  probable.  He 
was  no  respecter  of  places,  and  did  not  hesitate  upon  occa- 
sion to  violate  the  sanctity  of  the  temple.  Some  have 
supposed  these  Galileans  to  be  the  followers  of  Judas  of 
Galilee,  (Acts  v.  37,)  but  without  any  good  grounds. 
Probably  it  was  some  sudden  outbreak  at  one  of  the  feasts, 
and  they,  perhaps  taking  part  in  it,  perhaps  only  mere 
spectators,  were  slain  by  the  Roman  soldiers  in  the  outer 
court.  That  the  event  was  recent,  and  that  it  excited 
great  indignation,  are  apparent  from  the  narrative.  The 
attempt  of  Greswell  (iii.  26)  to  connect  it  with  the  sedition 
of  Barabbas,  (Luke  xxiii.  19,)  and  to  place  it  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  last  Passover,  and  thus  to  find  in  it  a  note  of 
time,  is  more  subtle  than  forcible.  Hengstenberg,1  suppos- 
ing the  parable  of  the  fig  tree  was  spoken  a  year  before  the 
Lord's  death,  makes  the  murder  of  these  Galileans  to  have 
been  at  the  last  Passover  but  one,  or  that  mentioned  in 
John  vi.  4,  which  the  Lord  did  not  attend.  Of  the  tower 
that  fell  in  Siloam,  we  have  no  knowledge. 

The  parable  of  the  fig  tree  has  been  regarded  by 
many  as  giving  a  chronological  datum  to  determine  the 
length  of  the  Lord's  ministry.'  Some  refer  the  three  years 
to  the  whole  period  before  Christ,  during  which  God  was 
waiting  for  the  Jews ;'  some  to  the  three  polities,  judges, 
kings,  and  high  priests.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  has 
any  chronological  value.* 

The  healing  of  the  sick  woman  is  mentioned  by  Luke, 
without  any  mark  of  time  or  place,  except  generally,  that  it 
was  in  a  synagogue  and  upon  the  Sabbath.  The  decided 
manner  in  which  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue  expresses  him- 
self against  the  lawfulness  of  healing  on  this  day,  indicates 
that  the  Pharisaic  party  had  determined  to  treat  such 
works  of  healing  as  a  violation  of  its  sanctity.     There  is  no 

>  Chrwt,  iii.  249.  «  Bengel,  KraOl,  Wieseler,  Stier. 

•  Grotius.  «  So  Meyer,  Lichtenstein,  Trench. 


368  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

expression  of  sympathy  with  the  woman,  of  sorrow  at  her 
sickness,  or  joy  at  her  recovery.  That  in  this  condemna- 
tion of  the  Lord's  act  he  was  supported  by  others,  appears 
from  v.  17.  Such  a  literal  adherence  to  the  law,  and  viola- 
tion of  its  spirit,  awaken  Christ's  just  indignation,  and  He 
denounces  him  as  a  hypocrite.  Perhaps,  the  parable  of  the 
mustard  seed  and  leaven  may  have  been  repeated  here.1 

The  account  of  the  Lord's  progress,  (v.  22,)  that  "  He 
went  through  the  cities  and  villages,  teaching,  and  journey- 
ing toward  Jerusalem,"  is  too  indefinite  to  determine  what 
stage  of  His  journey  He  had  now  reached.  Some  would 
refer  it  to  His  going  up  from  Perea  to  Bethany  at  the 
resurrection  of  Lazarus,  (John  xi.  1-17.) a  Some  support  is 
thought  to  be  found  for  this  in  the  Lord's  words,  (vs.  32, 33 :) 
"  Behold,  I  cast  out  devils,  and  I  do  cures  to-day,  and  to- 
morrow, and  the  third  I  shall  be  perfected.  I  must  walk 
to-day,  and  to-morrow,  and  the  day  following."  The  three 
days  are  said  to  refer  to  the  time  necessary  to  go  up  from 
Perea  to  Bethany,  and  are  to  be  literally  taken.  The 
meaning  of  His  words  then  is,  "  In  three  days  I  perfect  this 
part  of  my  work,  and  not  till  then  do  I  leave  Herod's  do- 
minions.'.' But  even  if  the  language  is  capable  of  this  in- 
terpretation, it  is  certain  that  v.  22,  which  speaks  of  a  jour- 
ney to  Jerusalem,  would  not  be  applied  to  a  journey  to 
Bethany,  which  was  rather  a  turning  aside  from  His  fixed 
route,  in  answer  to  a  special  request. 

The  time  when  the  Pharisees  came  to  Him,  to  warn  Him 
to  depart  or  Herod  would  kill  Him,  is  designated  as  the 
same  day  when  the  question  was  asked  Him,  "  Are  there 
few  that  be  saved  ? "  This  was  one  of  the  days  during 
which  He  was  teaching  and  journeying  toward  Jerusalem, 
(v.  22.)  That  Herod  should  be  spoken  of,  shows  that  Je- 
sus was  now  either  in  Galilee  or  Perea,  and  so  under  his 
jurisdiction  and  exposed  to  his  anger.     Meyer  supposes 

i  McKuight,  Meyer,  Alford.  >  Wieseler,  Oosterzee. 


THE  PHARISEES   WAEN   JESUS   OF  HEEOD.  369 

Him  to  be  still  in  Galilee,  and  that  His  reply  to  the  Phari- 
sees (v.  32)  is  to  be  understood :  "  I  have  yet  three  days  in 
which  to  labor  in  Galilee  and  to  complete  my  work  of  cast- 
ing out  devils  and  of  healing,  and  then  I  must  go  up  to 
Jerusalem."  On  the  third  day  He  comes  to  the  border,  as 
related  in  xvii.  11.  But  are  the  Lord's  words  to  be  under- 
stood of  three  literal  days  ?  ■  This  literal  interpretation  is 
not  to  be  pressed.  There  is  no  good  reason  why  the  lan- 
guage may  not  be  understood  as  a  general  statement,  that 
His  labors  must  be  continued  till  He  should  perfect  them 
at  His  death  in  Jerusalem.* 

The  motive  of  the  Pharisees  in  thus  warning  the  Lord 
to  depart,  is  not  clear.  It  is  possible  that  they  were  His 
friends,  and  that  their  message  was  based  upon  some  infor- 
mation which  they  possessed  of  the  purposes  of  Herod,  who 
may  have  been  in  Perea,  at  Livias,  or  Machaerus.  Had 
he  been,  the  great  publicity  with  which  the  Lord  jour- 
neyed, could  scarcely  have  failed  to  draw  the  king's  atten- 
tion to  Him,  and  to  awaken  some  suspicion  of  His  designs. 
If  not  His  friends,  some  suppose  them  to  have  been  sent  by 
Herod  in  order  to  frighten  Him  from  his  territories.*  This 
supposition  finds  some  support  in  His  reply,  "  Go  ye  and 
tell  that  fox,"  <fcc.  Less  probable  is  the  supposition  that 
they  feign  themselves  to  be  Herod's  messengers,  in  order  to 
drive  Him  into  Judea,  where  He  can  be  more  readily  ar- 
rested by  the  priests  and  rulers.  Perhaps  the  simpler  expla- 
nation is  that,  without  being  sent  by  Herod,  or  having  any 
special  knowledge  of  his  plans,  they  gratify  their  malice  by 
uttering  the  threat  that  he  will  kill  Him  if  He  does  not  de- 
part. 

The  apostrophe  to  Jerusalem  (vs.  34,  35)  is  found  also  in 

»  So  Meyer,  Alford.  This,  however,  makes  it  necessary  to  render 
rt\tiovfieuf  "  I  perfect  my  works ;"  not,  as  in  our  version,  "  I  shall  be  per- 
fected." 

>  So  Lichtenatein,  Stier,  Owen.  *  McKnight,  Meyer,  Alford. 

16* 


370  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB   LORD. 

Matt,  xxiil  37-39,  where  it  was  spoken  after  the  Lord  left 
the  temple  for  the  last  time.  From  its  nature,  and  from  the 
connection  in  which  it  stands  in  both  Evangelists,  it  is 
probable  that  it  was  twice  spoken.1  Most  who  think  it  to 
have  been  spoken  but  once,  find  its  most  fitting  place  in 
Matthew." 

It  has  been  questioned  how  the  words,  "  Ye  shall  not 
see  me,  until  the  time  come  when  ye  shall  say,  Blessed  is  he 
that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  are  to  be  under- 
stood. The  most  obvious  meaning  is,  that  they  are  to  be 
taken  in  the  large  prophetic  sense,  and  refer  to  His  depart- 
ure into  Heaven,  and  to  His  joyful  reception  by  the  nation 
when  He  should  come  again  in  His  kingdom.  And  this 
also  best  fits  the  connection  of  the  thought.  No  prophet 
could  perish  out  of  Jerusalem.  There  He  must  die,  and  af- 
terward ascend  to  God,  to  be  seen  no  more  till  the  hearts 
of  the  people  should  be  made  ready  for  Him.  Till  then 
their  house  was  left  unto  them  desolate.  The  supposition 
that  He  foretold  His  purpose  to  go  up  to  the  coming  Pass- 
over, and  that  it  there  found  its  entire  fulfilment,'  is  er- 
roneous. That  some  of  the  people  did  then  say,  (Luke  xix. 
38,)  "  Blessed  be  the  king  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,"  was  no  general,  much  less  national,  acceptance  of 
Him,  and  no  real  fulfilment  of  His  words.  Still,  some  allu- 
sion to  the  shouts  of  the  multitude  at  His  triumphal  entry, 
need  not  be  denied.4 

Dec.  782.    a.  d.  29. 

From  Perea  He  goes  up  to  Jerusalem,  to  be  present    John  x.  22-24. 
at  the  feast  of  Dedication.     Upon  the  way  He  passes 
through  the  village  of  Bethany,  and  visits  Mary  and  Mar-    Luk*  x.  88-42. 
tha.     Reaching  Jerusalem,  the  Jews  demand  that  He 
declare  plainly  whether  He  is,  or  is  not,  the  Messiah. 

1  So  Stier,  Alford,  Ellicott  •  Meyer,  Lange,  De  Wette. 

»  Wieseler,  821.  *  Meyer  in  loco. 


THE  FEAST   OF  DEDICATION.  371 

He  answers  them  by  referring  to  His  past  words  and  John  x.  25-42. 
works.  The  Jews,  thinking  His  answer  blasphemous, 
take  up  stones  to  stone  Him.  He  continues  His  dis- 
course to  them,  but  as  they  seek  to  arrest  Him,  He  es- 
capes from  them,  and  goes  beyond  Jordan  to  Bethany, 
(Bethabara,)  and  abides  there.  Many  resort  to  Him, 
and  believe  on  Him. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  we  would  insert  the  narrative  of 
John,  (x.  22-42,)  embracing  the  visit  to  the  feast  of  Dedi- 
cation, and  the  return  to  Perea.  These  events  are  omitted 
by  the  Synoptists,  as  not  falling  into  the  scope  of  their  nar- 
ratives, which  leads  them  to  mention  no  visit  at  Jerusalem 
but  the  last. 

That  the  visit  at  Bethany,  mentioned  by  Luke  only, 
took  place  at  this  time,  cannot  be  positively  affirmed,  but 
it  cannot  well  be  put  earlier.  Not  improbably  it  is  placed 
by  the  Evangelist  in  its  present  position  in  the  narrative 
upon  other  than  chronological  grounds. 

The  journey,  as  it  has  been  traced,  brings  Ilim  into  the 
neighborhood  of  Jerusalem.  His  presence  at  the  feast  of 
Dedication  is  often  ascribed  to  the  fact  of  His  proximity  to 
the  city,  rather  than  to  any  design,  on  leaving  Galilee,  to  be 
present.1  It  is  not  indeed  probable  that  He  would  go  up 
simply  because  of  the  feast,  which  He  might  have  observ- 
ed elsewhere.  The  three  great  feasts,  says  Lightfoot, 
"might  not  be  celebrated  in  any  other  place;  but  the 
Encenia  was  kept  everywhere  throughout  the  whole 
laud."  As  one  of  the  minor  feasts,  His  presence  implies 
some  special  motive.  May  we  not  find  this  in  the  character 
of  the  Lord's  last  journey  ?  For  a  considerable  period  He 
had  avoided  Jerusalem;  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  He 
went  up  secretly.  Now  He  seeks  publicity.  Wherever 
the  Seventy  go  they  proclaim  Him,  and  all  understand  that 
He  appears  as  the  Messiah.    Perhaps,  as  has  been  already 

*  Lichtenstein. 


372  THE  LIFE  OF  OUB  LORD. 

intimated,  He  may  have  designed  to  send  His  messengers 
into  Judea ;  and  if  they  found  a  favorable  reception,  to  fol- 
low them.  There  is  then  no  reason  why  He  should  longer 
avoid  Jerusalem.  He  will  present  Himself  before  the  priests 
and  scribes  and  rulers,  that  they  may  show  forth  what  is  in 
their  hearts ;  show  whether  they  can  yet  recognize  in  Him 
the  Messiah.  And  the  feast  of  Dedication  had  special  sig- 
nificance as  the  time  of  such  a  visit.  It  was  appointed  in 
commemoration  of  the  national  deliverance  by  the  Macca- 
bees from  the  oppression  of  the  Syrians,  (b.  c.  164,)  and  of 
the  cleansing  of  the  temple  and  restoration  of  the  appointed 
worship.1  It  should  not  only  have  reminded  the  Jews  of 
the  sins  that  brought  them  under  the  tyranny  of  Antiochus 
and  of  the  goodness  of  God  in  their  deliverance,  but  have 
taught  them  the  true  cause  of  their  present  bondage,  and 
awakened  in  them  hopes  of  a  more  glorious  deliverance 
through  the  Son  of  David.  Had  the  Lord  found  them  con- 
scious of  sin,  and  humbling  themselves  under  the  punish- 
ments of  God,  the  way  would  have  been  opened  for  a  new 
cleansing  of  the  temple,  and  the  bringing  in  of  a  new  and 
nobler  worship.  But  the  feast  served  only  to  feed  their 
pride,  to  foster  their  hate  of  Roman  rule,  and  to  turn  their 
hearts  away  from  the  true  deliverer.  A  Judas  Maccabeus 
they  would  have  welcomed ;  but  Jesus,  whose  first  work 
must  be  to  deliver  them  from  sin,  found  no  favor  in  their 
eyes. 

It  is  possible  that  some  of  the  Seventy  may  have 
preceded  Jesus  at  Jerusalem,  announcing  His  coming. 
The  manner  in  which  the  Jews  gather  around  Him,  and 
the  character  of  their  question,  "How  long  dost  thou  make 
us  to  doubt?  If  Thou  be  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly," 
clearly  indicate  that  in  some  way  their  attention  had  been 
especially  drawn  to  Him  as  something  more  than  a  prophet, 
as  indeed  the  Christ.    If  we  compare  this  language  with 

»  1  Mace.  iv.  52-59. 


JESUS  IN  THE  TEMPLE    ANSWERS  THE  JEWS.  373 

that  uttered  but  two  months  earlier  at  the  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, it  appears  evident  that  His  Messianic  claims  had 
now  become  prominent.  That  the  Jews  asked  the  question 
with  the  intent  to  make  an  affirmative  answer  the  basis  of 
accusation,1  is  not  improbable ;  but  it  may  also  have  been 
an  honest  expression  of  doubt.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  no 
mention  is  made  of  any  preliminary  teaching  or  healing, 
nothing  to  call  forth  the  question.  He  is  silent  till  it  is  ad- 
dressed Him  by  the  people,  and  this  was  as  soon  as  He 
appeared  in  the  temple. 

The  Lord's  reply,  "I  told  you,  and  ye  believed  not," 
must  refer  to  the  general  sentiment  and  scope  of  His  teach- 
ings ;  for  we  nowhere  have  on  record  any  express  avowal 
to  the  Jews  that  He  was  the  Messiah.  Such  an  avowal 
He  seems  purposely  to  have  avoided.  His  own  words  were : 
"  If  I  bear  witness  of  myself,  my  witness  is  not  true.  There 
is  another  that  beareth  witness  of  me,"  (John  v.  31,  32.)  In 
conformity  to  this  general  rule,  He  here  refers  the  Jews  to 
His  works.  u  The  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name, 
they  bear  witness  of  me ;"  and  that  this  evidence  was  not 
sufficient  He  ascribes  to  their  unbelief.  This  was  not  what 
they  wanted,  and  they  must  have  thought  it  very  remark- 
able, that  if  He  were  the  Christ,  He  did  not  explicitly  and 
openly  affirm  it.  They  did  not  consider  that  "  with  the 
heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness,"  and  that  the  evi- 
dence that  was  convincing  to  a  Nathanael,  was  wholly  un- 
satisfactory to  a  Caiaphas.  That  in  their  question  they  had 
no  other  than  the  current  conceptions  of  the  Messiah,  ap- 
pears from  the  effect  of  His  reply  upon  them.  So  soon  as 
He  began  to  speak  of  His  relations  to  God  as  His  Father, 
and  said,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one,"  they  sought  to  stone 
Him.  This  was  open  blasphemy,  and  the  blasphemer  must 
be  stoned. 

His  reference  to  the  figure  of  the  sheep,  (v.  26,)  as  it 

1  So  Meyer  after  Luther. 


374  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

had  been  used  by  Him  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  (x.  1-18,) 
is  not  strange,  for  probably  most  of  those  now  present, 
priests,  scribes,  and  Pharisees,  were  residents  in  Jerusalem, 
and  had  heard  His  words  at  that  time.  The  interval  was 
but  two  months,  not  so  long  that  they  could  have  forgotten 
what  He  then  said,  especially  if  they  had  not  heard  Him 
since. 

This  attempt  to  take  His  life,  compared  with  that  at  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles,  (viii.  59,)  may  perhaps  show  less  of 
hasty  passion,  but  indicates  a  fixed  purpose  to  destroy  Him.1 
The  attempt  to  take  Him  (v.  39)  may  have  been  with  de- 
sign to  keep  Him  in  custody  till  He  could  be  formally  tried ; 
or  that  removing  Him  from  the  Temple,  they  might  imme- 
diately stone  Him.  That  His  escape  was  miraculous,  is  not 
said,  though  so  regarded  by  many.'  If  He  had  designed  to 
send  His  messengers  into  Judea,  this  new  manifestation  of 
hostility  may  have  prevented  it ;  for  if  His  life  was  in  danger 
at  Jerusalem,  He  could  not  have  journeyed  safely  into  other 
parts  of  the  province.  No  other  place  of  refuge  was  open 
to  Him  than  Perea.  Thus  the  Seventy  may  but  partially 
have  completed  their  intended  circuit,  Judea  being  shut 
against  them  ;  and  this  will  explain  why  their  labors  are  so 
briefly  noticed  by  the  Evangelist. 

The  Lord,  now  leaving  Judea,  goes  beyond  Jordan, 
"  into  the  place  where  John  at  first  baptized."  There  is 
no  doubt  that  this  was  Bethabara  or  Bethany,  (i.  28.)  Its 
position  has  already  been  considered.  The  motives  that  led 
to  its  selection  are  wholly  conjectural.  That  He  sought  it 
merely  as  a  place  of  safety  from  the  Jews,  is  possible ;  but 
here,  on  the  other  hand,  He  was  exposed  to  the  anger  of 
Herod,  (Luke  xiii.  31,  32.)  Aside  from  considerations  of 
His  personal  safety,  there  is  much  significance  in  this  return 
to  the  place  of  His  baptism.    He  might  expect  to  find  there, 

>  Luthardt,  ii.  190.  »  So  Luthardt ;  contra,  Meyer. 


JESUS  RETURNS  TO   PEREA.  375 

as  He  did,  many  whose  hearts  had  been  prepared  by  the 
teachings  and  baptism  of  John  for  the  reception  of  His  own 
words.  It  is  said  that  "  there  He  abode."  This  implies 
that  He  made  no  long  circuits  through  the  surrounding 
towns.  He  abode  in  the  town  or  district  of  Bethany,  where 
many  resorted  unto  Him,  and  where  Mary  and  Martha 
sent  to  Him  during  the  sickness  of  Lazarus.1  How  long 
He  sojourned  here  ere  He  went  up  to  Bethany,  near  Jeru- 
salem, to  raise  Lazarus,  does  not  clearly  appear.  It  is  in- 
ferred by  some,  from  the  language  of  His  disciples,  after 
He  had  proposed  to  return  to  Judea,  (xl  7,  8,)  "The 
Jews  of  late  sought  to  stone  Thee  " — wv  «£ttow,  <fec,  that 
He  had  but  just  come  from  Jerusalem.*  Much  stress,  how- 
ever, cannot  be  laid  on  this.  (See  Acts  vii.  52.)  From  the 
feast  of  Dedication  to  the  Passover  was  about  four  months, 
and  it  is  not  improbable  that  half  of  this,  or  more,  was  spent 
"  beyond  Jordan,"  in  the  neighborhood  of  Bethany.  Many 
would  place  during  this  time  much  that  Luke  relates. 
Upon  grounds  already  stated,  we  shall  assign  to  this  period 
all  from  chap.  xiv.  to  xvii.  10. 


Dec.  782.     a.  d.  29. 

The  Lord  is  invited  to  feast  with  one  of  the  chief  Luke  xiv.  1-6. 
Pharisees  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  there  heals  a  man 
who  had  the  dropsy,  and  defends  the  lawfulness  of  the 
act      He  addresses   the  guests,  reproving  them    for      "     xiv.  7-14. 
choosing  the  highest  seats,  and  reminds  His  host  of  his 
duty  to  the  poor,  and  speaks  the  parable  of  the  great      "     xiv.  15-24. 
supper.     As  He  journeyed  on,  great  multitudes  went      "     xiv.  25-35. 
with  Him,  and  He  addresses  them  upon  the  self-denial 
required  in  disciples.     Publicans  and  sinners  coming  in      "     xv.  1-32. 


i  As  to  the  use  of  "  abode,"  ixtvtiv,  gee  John  ii.  IS)  iv.  40 ;  vii.  9 ;  xL  C. 
»  Meyer. 


376  THE  LTPE  OP  OUR  LORD. 

large  numbers  to  hear  Him,  the  scribes  and  Pharisees    Luki  xv.  1-32. 

murmur  that  He  should  receive  them,  and  eat  with  them. 

He,  therefore,  utters  several  parables,  that  of  the  lost 

sheep,  of  the  lost  piece  of  silver,  and  of  the  prodigal 

son  ;  and  to  His  disciples  that  of  the  wasteful  steward,      "     xvi.  1-13. 

adding  admonitions  against  covetousness.     The  Phari-      "     xvi.  14-3  L 

sees  deriding  Him,  He  rebukes  them,  and  utters  the 

parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.     He  addresses  the      "     xviL  1-10. 

disciples  upon  offences,  and  forgiveness,  and  faith. 

The  Pharisee  by  whom  the  Lord  was  invited  to  eat 
bread,  is  described  as  "  one  of  the  chief  Pharisees."  This 
may  denote  that  he  was  of  high  social  position,  but  prob- 
ably includes  some  official  distinction,  as  that  he  was  chief 
of  a  synagogue,  or  member  of  the  Sanhedrim.  His  motive 
in  thus  seeking  the  Lord's  society,  does  not  clearly  appear ; 
and  it  is  possible  that,  unlike  most  of  his  sect,  he  wished  to 
show  him  some  mark  of  respect,  perhaps  as  a  prophet,  per- 
haps as  the  Messiah.  Still  the  Lord's  words  (v.  12)  imply 
that  he  made  the  feast  in  a  self-seeking,  ostentatious  spirit, 
and  under  the  pretence  of  hospitality  he  may  have  hidden 
an  evil  design.  It  appears  that  there  were  many  invited, 
and  that  they  were  of  the  richer  and  better  class.  It  was 
customary  for  the  Jews  to  entertain  their  friends  upon  the 
Sabbath,  although  they  cooked  no  food.  "  The  Jews'  tables 
were  generally  better  spread  on  that  day  than  on  any 
other.1 » 

The  appearance  of  the  dropsical  man  at  such  a  feast,  it 
is  not  easy  to  explain.  He  could  hardly,  if  severely  ill, 
have  been  invited  as  a  guest ;  and  it  is  said  that  after  the 
Lord  had  "  healed  him  He  let  him  go,"  as  if  he  were  only 
accidentally  present.  Nor  is  it  probable  that  he  came 
merely  as  a  spectator,  although  eastern  customs  permit 
strangers  to  enter  houses  at  all  hours  with  great  freedom, 
and  they  are  often  present  at  feasts  merely  to  look  on. 

1  Lightfoot ;  see  Trench,  Mir.  263. 


HEALING   OF  A  MAN    WITH   THE  DROPSY.  377 

Some  have  therefore  supposed  that  he  was  intentionally 
brought  in  by  the  Pharisees,  to  see  if  the  Lord  would  heal 
him  on  that  day.1  But  it  is  more  probable  that  he  came  in 
faith  to  be  healed,  and  unable,  perhaps,  to  approach  the 
Lord  before  He  entered  into  the  house,  now  forced  himself 
into  the  room  where  He  was.  Had  he  been  a  mere  tool  in 
the  hands  of  the  Pharisees,  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether 
the  Lord  would  have  healed  him. 

McKuight  supposes  the  parable  of  the  great  supper  to 
be  the  same  as  that  mentioned  by  Matt.  xxii.  2-14,  and  to 
have  been  spoken  a  second  time  in  the  temple.  But  the 
parables  are  wholly  distinct,  as  a  comparison  of  the  details 
plainly  shows. 

As  the  end  of  His  ministry  drew  nigh,  and  the  hostility 
of  His  enemies  became  more  open,  the  Lord's  words  became 
more  and  more  plain  in  showing  how  much  of  self-denial 
was  involved  in  becoming  one  of  His  disciples.  The  same 
remarks  in  substance  He  had  before  made,  (Matt.  x.  37  ;) 
but  He  here  adds  new  illustrations.  He  compares  Himself 
to  a  man  who  wishes  to  build  a  tower,  His  Church ;  and  to  a 
king  who  goes  to  make  war  with  another  king,  with  the 
prince  of  this  world  ;  and  they  who  would  aid  Him  in  this 
building,  or  in  this  warfare,  must  be  ready  to  sacrifice  all. 

The  great  concourse  of  publicans  and  sinners  to  Him 
cannot  be  explained  from  any  thing  in  His  language  (xiv. 
25-35)  as  especially  applicable  to  them,  nor  as  springing  from 
their  exclusion  from  the  feast.  It  rather  marks  the  fact 
that,  now  that  His  words  had  become  more  sharp  against 
the  Pharisees,  and  the  breach  between  them  and  Him  more 
apparent,  this  class  rallied  around  Him  and  thronged  to 
hear  Him.  Much  to  the  disgust  of  the  Pharisees,  He  did 
not  disdain  even  to  eat  with  them.  Such  an  act  they 
deemed  in  the  highest  degree  unbecoming  in  one  who 
claimed  to  be  the  Messiah  ;  and  it  was  also  a  keen  reproof 

>  McKuight,  Oosterzee,  Stier. 


378  THE  LIFE  OP  OUB  LOBD. 

to  themselves,  who  so  scrupulously  excluded  all  publicans 
and  sinners  from  their  society. 

It  is  disputed  whether  the  parable  of  the  lost  sheep,  as 
here  given  by  Luke,  is  the  same  as  that  given  by  Matt, 
xviii.  12,  13.  From  the  relation  in  which  it  stands  to  the 
other  parables  which  Luke  has  recorded,  we  cannot  well 
doubt  that  it  was  spoken  at  the  same  time.  But  such  an 
illustration,  so  natural  and  apt,  may  have  been  used  more 
than  once,  and  been  spoken  earlier  in  Galilee,  as  Matthew 
relates.  Perhaps,  both  in  form  and  in  meaning,  some  dis- 
tinction may  be  drawn  between  them. 

The  parables  of  the  lost  sheep,  of  the  lost  piece  of  silver, 
and  of  the  prodigal  son,  seem  to  have  been  all  uttered  at 
once  to  the  Pharisees  and  scribes,  who  murmured  at  His 
reception  of  publicans  and  sinners.  That  which  immediately 
follows,  of  the  unjust  steward,  was  spoken  to  the  disciples  ; 
but  whether  immediately  or  after  a  little  interval,  we  have 
no  data  to  decide. 

It  is  not  easy  to  see  how  the  words  addressed  to  the 
Pharisees  in  v.  18,  respecting  divorce  and  adultery,  are  to  be 
connected  with  the  verses  immediately  preceding ;  but  the 
parable  that  follows,  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  has  plain 
reference  to  that  sect.  Whether  the  words  to  the  disciples 
(xvii.  1-10)  followed  at  once  upon  the  parable,  we  cannot 
determine. 


Jan.— Feb.  783.    a.  d.  30. 

Lazarus,  the  brother  of  Mary  and  Martha,  being  sick,  John  xl  1-46. 
they  send  a  messenger  to  the  Lord  in  Perea  to  inform 
Him  of  his  sickness.  After  receiving  the  message  He 
abides  still  two  days  in  the  place  where  He  was.  Tak- 
ing the  disciples  with  Him,  He  then  goes  to  Bethany  and 
raises  Lazarus  from  the  dead.  Many  of  the  Jews  present 
believed  on  Him,  but  others  departing  to  Jerusalem  tell 


THE  RESURRECTION  OP  LAZARUS.  379 

what  had  occurred  to  the  Pharisees.  A  council  is  sum-  John  xi.  47-57. 
moned,  and  Caiaphas  the  high  priest  advises  that  He  be 
put  to  death.  Jesus,  learning  this,  goes  with  His  dis- 
ciples to  a  city  called  Ephraim,  and  His  enemies  give  a 
commandment,  that,  if  any  man  know  where  He  is,  he 
should  show  it,  that  they  might  take  Him. 

At  this  point  in  Luke's  narrative  we  insert  the  account 
given  by  John  of  the  journey  of  Jesus  to  Bethany  to  raise 
Lazarus,  and  of  His  subsequent  departure  to  Ephraim  and 
sojourn  there.  The  Lord  waits  two  days  after  receiving  the 
message  of  the  sisters  ere  He  departs  for  Beftiany.  It  is 
not  certain  how  long  after  the  death  of  Lazarus  He  arrived 
there.  It  is  said  (v.  17)  that  "when  He  came  He  found 
that  he  had  lain  in  the  grave  four  days  already."  We 
may  then  count  as  the  first,  that  on  which  the  message  was 
sent  and  received  ;  the  two  following  days  of  waiting,  and 
on  the  fourth  He  departs  from  Perea  and  arrives  at  Bethany 
If  we  suppose  Lazarus  to  have  died  on  the  same  day  that 
the  message  was  sent,  and  to  have  been  buried  the  same 
day,  as  was  customary,  (see  Acts  v.  6  and  10,)  the  day  of 
the  Lord's  arrival  was  the  fourth  after  the  interment. 
Reckoning  a  part  of  a  day  as  a  whole,  we  have  thus  the  four 
days.  Lardner '  supposes  that  his  burial  was  the  day  fol- 
lowing his  death.  "If  he  died  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  he  was  buried  on  the  second,  and  raised  on  the  fifth. 
He  had  been  dead  four  days  complete,  and  buried  four 
days  incomplete." 

Tholuck  (in  loco)  thinks  it  improbable  that  Jesus  could 
have  made  the  journey  (perhaps  23-29  miles)  in  one  day, 
and  yet  arrive  in  Bethany  in  season  to  do  all  that  is  re- 
corded of  Him.  He  must  have  spent  parts  of  two  days 
upon  the  road.  He  supposes,  therefore,  that  Lazarus  died 
the  night  following  the  arrival  of  the  messenger  and  was 
buried  the  next  day,  and  that  Jesus  reached  Bethany  the 

»  Works,  x.  26,  note. 


380  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LORD. 

fifth  day.  The  first  day  was  that  of  the  burial ;  the  second 
and  third  were  spent  in  waiting ;  the  fourth  in  journeying ; 
on  the  fifth  He  reaches  Bethany  and  raises  Lazarus. 

Some  place  the  death  of  Lazarus  on  the  last  of  the  two 
days  of  waiting,  referring  in  proof  to  Christ's  words  vs.  1 1 
and  14.1  He  had  waited  till  the  death  should  take  place, 
and,  so  soon  as  it  did,  He  announced  it  to  the  disciples,  say- 
ing, "  Lazarus  is  dead."  Thus  He  is  made  to  reach  Beth- 
any on  the  sixth  day.' 

That  the  Lord,  after  He  commenced  this  journey,  went 
directly  to  Bethany,  lies  upon  the  face  of  the  narrative.' 
Yet,  some  suppose  that  much  related  by  the  Synoptists 
finds  here  its  proper  place.  Krafft  (117)  identifies  the  be- 
ginning of  the  journey  with  Mark  x.  17:  "  And  when  He 
was  gone  forth  into  the  way,"  <fcc. ;  and  Mark  x.  32,  Matt. 
xx.  17,  and  Luke  xviii.  31,  with  its  progress.  An  enumer- 
ation of  the  events  which  he  here  brings  together  will 
show  the  great  improbability  of  his  arrangement :  the  dis- 
course upon  the  danger  of  riches,  the  reward  of  the  apos- 
tles, the  third  announcement  of  His  approaching  death,  the 
strife  of  the  apostles  for  supremacy,  the  entrance  into  Jer- 
icho attended  by  crowds,  healing  of  the  blind  men,  inter- 
view with  Zaccheus,  parable  of  the  pounds ;  all  this  on  the 
^ay  to  Bethany.  Ebrard  does  not  follow  Krafft,  yet  sup- 
poses that,  as  He  was  two  or  more  days  on  the  way,  He  may 
have  made  several  circuits.  All  suppositions  of  this  kind 
are  wholly  untenable.  The  Lord  went  to  Bethany  for  a 
special  purpose,  attended  only  by  His  followers,  and  with- 
out publicity.4 

i  Bengel,  Krafft. 

«  See  Greswell,  ii.  513 ;  Ebrard,  456  ;  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1862,  p.  65. 

*  So  Meyer,  Teschendorf,  Liechtenstein,  Robinson.  / 

*  The  arrangement  of  McKnight  is  extraordinary.  Placing  Bethany, 
where  He  was  sojourning,  on  the  Jordan  in  northern  Perea,  he  supposes  Je- 
sus to  have  gone  through  Samaria  and  Galilee,  and  on  the  way  to  hare 
healed  the  ten  lepers,  (Luke  xvii.  11,)  and  thence  to  Jerusalem,  and  from 
Jerusalem  to  Bethany  of  Judea. 


VILLAGE   OP   BETHANY.  381 

A  very  slight  examination  shows  that  KraftVs  order 
is  without  basis.  It  is  scarcely  possible  that  the  Lord, 
going  up  to  Bethany  for  a  special  purpose,  and  this  a  con- 
siderable period  before  the  Passover,  should  have  taken  the 
Twelve,  and  said  unto  them :  "  Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem, and  all  things  that  are  written  by  the  prophets  concern- 
ing the  Son  of  man,  shall  be  accomplished,"  (Luke  xviii.  31.) 
Did  the  great  multitude  that  followed  Him  from  Jericho 
go  on  with  Him  to  Bethany  ?  (Matt.  xx.  29.)  It  is  besides 
apparent  that  the  journey  through  Jericho,  made  with  such 
publicity,  had  Jerusalem  as  its  goal,  and  that  there  was  no 
delay,  save  for  a  few  hours  at  Bethany,  preparatory  to  the 
triumphal  entry,  (John  xii.  1-12.) 

Bethany  lies  on  the  eastern  slope  of  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
some  fifteen  furlongs  (one  and  a  half  miles)  southeast  from 
Jerusalem.  The  etymology  of  the  name  is  uncertain.  Ac- 
cording to  some  it  means  "  a  low  place,"  locus  depressionis, 
as  lying  in  a  littl  e  valley ;  according  to  others,  a  "  house  of 
dates,"  or  "  place  of  palms,"  locus  dactylorumS  It  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  Its  chief  interest  to  us  is 
in  connection  with  Lazarus  and  his  two  sisters.  Its  prox- 
imity to  Jerusalem,  and  its  retired  position,  made  it  a  conve- 
nient and  pleasant  resting  place  for  the  Lord  upon  His  jour- 
neys to  and  from  the  feasts,  although  there  is  mention  made 
but  once  of  His  presence  there  (Luke  x.  38-42)  prior  to  the 
resurrection  of  Lazarus.  It  is  now  a  small  village  of  some 
twenty  houses,  occupied  by  Bedouin  Arabs.  "A  wild 
mountain  hamlet,  screened  by  an  intervening  ridge  from  the 
view  of  the  top  of  Olivet,  perched  on  its  broken  plateau  of 
rock,  the  last  collection  of  human  habitations  before  the 
desert  hills  which  reach  to  Jericho — this  is  the  modern  vil- 
lage of  El-Lazarieh."  *  Little  that  is  ancient  is  now  to  be 
found.  A  tradition,  that  dates  back  to  an  early  period, 
points  out  the  sites  of  the  houses  of  Simon  and  of  Lazarus, 

»  Lightfoot,  x.  85 ;  Winer,  i.  67.  »  Stanley,  186. 


382  THE  LIFE  OP   OUB  LORD. 

and  the  sepulchre  of  the  latter.  "This,"  says  Porter,1  "  is  a 
deep  vault,  partly  excavated  in  the  rock,  and  partly  lined 
with  masonry.  The  entrance  is  low,  and  opens  on  a  long, 
winding,  half  ruinous  staircase,  leading  down  to  a  small 
chamber,  and  from  this  a  few  steps  more  lead  down  to  an- 
other smaller  vault,  in  which  the  body  of  Lazarus  is  sup- 
posed to  have  lain.  This  situation  of  the  tomb  in  the  centre 
of  the  village  scarcely  agrees  with  the  Gospel  narrative,  and 
the  masonry  of  the  interior  has  no  appearance  of  antiquity. 
But  the  real  tomb  could  not  have  been  far  distant."  Thom- 
son says,  (ii.  599  :)  "By  the  dim  light  of  a  taper  we  de- 
scended very  cautiously  by  twenty-five  slippery  steps  to  the 
reputed  sepulchre  of  Lazarus,  or  El-Azariyeh,  as  both  tomb 
and  village  are  now  called.  But  I  have  no  description  of  it 
to  give,  and  no  questions  about  it  to  ask.  It  is  a  wretched 
concern,  every  way  unsatisfactory,  and  almost  disgusting." 
Robinson  denies  that  the  sepulchre  now  shown  could  have 
been  that  of  Lazarus. 

The  impression  which  the  miracle  of  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus  made  upon  the  people  at  large,  was  very  great. 
It  was  in  all  its  circumstances  so  public,  and  so  well  authen- 
ticated, that  it  was  impossible  for  the  most  sceptical  to  deny 
it,  even  if  it  did  not  lead  them  to  faith  in  Jesus.  It  is  said 
(vs.  45,  46,)  "  Then  many  of  the  Jews  which  came  to  Mary, 
believed  on  Him.  But  some  of  them  went  their  ways  to  the 
Pharisees,  and  told  them  what  things  Jesus  had  done." 
From  the  grammatical  construction,  Meyer  infers  that  those 
who  went  to  the  Pharisees  were  of  those  who  believed,  and 
that  they  went  that  they  might  testify  to  them  of  the  mir- 
acle.* As  all  did  not  believe  on  Him,  it  is  more  probable 
that  some  of  these  unbelievers  went  to  the  Pharisees,  and 
that  their  motive  was  evil.  The  ecclesiastical  rulers  felt  that 
it  was  now  high  time  that  something  should  be  done,  and 

»  Hand  Book,  i.  188. 

*  See,  contra,  Luthardt  and  Alford  in  loco. 


THE   COUNSEL   OP  CAIAPHAS.  383 

they  proceed  at  once  to  call  a  council  to  determine  what 
steps  should  be  taken.  Their  deliberations  ended  with  the 
resolve  that  He  should  be  put  to  death.  This  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  decisive  and  final  rejection  of  Jesus  by  the 
Jewish  authorities.  Much  earlier  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem 
had  sought  to  slay  Him  as  a  Sabbath  breaker  and  blas- 
phemer, (John  v.  16-18 ;)  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians  in 
Galilee  had  taken  counsel  how  they  might  destroy  Him, 
(Mark  hi.  6  ;)  the  Sanhedrim  had  agreed  to  excommunicate 
any  one  who  should  confess  that  He  was  Christ,  (John  ix. 
22 ;)  on  one  occasion  officers  had  been  sent  to  arrest  Him, 
(John  vii.  32  ;)  and  there  was  a  general  impression  that 
His  enemies  would  not  rest  till  He  was  removed  out  of  the 
way,  (John  vii.  25.)  But  it  does  not  appear  that  to  this 
time  there  had  been  a  determination  of  the  Sanhedrim,  in 
formal  session,  that  He  should  die.  The  miracle  at  Bethany, 
and  its  great  popular  effect,  brought  the  matter  to  a  crisis. 
The  nation,  in  its  highest  council,  presided  over  by  the 
high  priest,  decided  in  the  most  solemn  manner  that  the 
public  safety  demanded  His  death.  All  that  now  remained 
to  be  done  was  to  determine  how  His  death  could  be  best 
effected. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  how,  in  the  deliberations  of  the  San- 
hedrim, truth  and  justice  were  made  wholly  subservient  to 
selfish  policy.  That  Jesus  had  wrought  a  great  and  won- 
derful miracle  at  Bethany,  was  not  denied.  Indeed  it  was 
admitted,  and  made  the  basis  of  their  action  against  Him: 
"  If  we  let  Him  thus  alone,  all  will  believe  on  Him."  But 
on  what  ground  rested  their  fear  that  "  the  Romans  would 
come  and  take  away  both  their  place  and  nation "  ?  It 
seems  plain  that  they  did  not  look  upon  Jesus  as  one  who, 
under  any  circumstances,  would  fulfil  their  Messianic  hopes, 
and  establish  a  victorious  kingdom.  Even  if  all  were  to 
believe  on  Him,  and  He  should  set  up  Himself  as  King, 
He  could  not  resist  the  Romans.     His  undeniable  miracles 


384  THE  LITE   OP  OUR  LORD. 

could  not  authenticate  His  Messiahship.  This  strikingly 
shows  how  little  the  impression  made  by  the  character  of 
Jesus,  His  works  and  teachings,  corresponded  to  the  preva- 
lent conceptions  of  the  Messiah.  It  was  to  the  Pharisees 
impossible  that  He,  the  teacher,  the  prophet,  should  be- 
come the  leader  of  armies,  the  assertor  of  their  national 
rights,  the  warrior  like  David.  They  felt  that  in  Him  their 
hopes  never  could  be  fulfilled.  His  growing  popularity 
with  the  people,  if  it  led  to  insurrection,  could  only  bring 
upon  them  severer  oppression.  In  this  point  of  view,  it 
was  better  that  He  should  die,  whatever  might  be  His 
miraculous  powers,  than  that  all  through  Him  should 
perish. 

If,  as  the  narrative  plainly  implies,  the  Sanhedrim  held 
its  session  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  knowledge  of  the 
resurrection  of  Lazarus  reached  it,  the  Lord's  departure  to 
Ephraim  could  not  have  been  long  delayed.  He  could 
not  remain  in  Bethany  without  each  hour  putting  His  life 
in  peril.  That  He  went  secretly  to  Ephraim,  appears  from 
the  commandment  given  by  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees 
that  "  if  any  man  knew  where  He  were,  he  should  show 
it,  that  they  might  take  Him."  Yet  the  Twelve  seem  to 
have  accompanied  Him,  or,  which  is  more  probable,  to  have 
gathered  to  Him  there.  It  is  not  improbable  that  others, 
also,  may  have  resorted  to  Him.  Of  the  city  Ephraim,  in 
which  He  took  refuge,  little  is  known,  and  different  sites 
have  been  assigned  it.  In  2d  Chronicles  xiii.  19,  mention 
is  made  of  an  Ephraim  in  connection  with  Bethel  and 
Jeshanah.  Josephus1  speaks  of  Ephraim  in  connection 
with  Bethela,  or  Bethel.  It  was  a  small  town  lying  in 
the  mountainous  district  of  Judah,  and  conquered  by 
Vespasian.  Eusebius  mentions  an  Ephron  as  lying  eight 
Roman  miles  north  of  Jerusalem.     Jerome,*  who  mentions 

»  War,  4.  9.  9.  t  Raumer,  171. 


SITE   OP  EPHRAIM.  385 

the  same  place,  puts  it  at  twenty  miles.  Lightfoot  iden- 
tifies the  Ephraim  of  Chronicles,  of  Josephus,  and  of  the 
text.1  That  the  Ephron  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  is  the 
same  place,  can  scarcely  be  questioned ;  and  their  conflicting 
statements  as  to  its  distance  from  Jerusalem  may  be  ex- 
plained, as  Robinson  does,  by  the  supposition  that  the  lat- 
ter corrects  the  former.  Wieseler  maintains  that  Euse- 
bius is  right.  Proceeding  upon  these  data,  Robinson  thinks 
that  he  finds  the  site  of  Ephraim  in  the  modern  Taiyibeh, 
which  is  situated  about  twenty  Roman  miles  northeast  of 
Jerusalem,  and  some  five  or  six  miles  northeast  of  Bethel, 
upon  a  lofty  hill,  overlooking  all  the  valleys  of  the  Jordan. 
This  identification  is  accepted  by  many.'  Ebrard,  however, 
denies  that  the  Ephraim  of  Josephus  can  be  identified  with 
that  of  the  Evangelist,  and  places  the  latter  southeast  from 
Jerusalem ;  because  that  Jesus,  on  His  way  from  it  to  Jeru- 
salem, passed  through  Jericho.  Sepp  places  it  in  the  land 
of  Gilead  ;  Luthardt  regards  its  position  as  doubtful. 


Feb.— Mabch,  783.    a.  d.  30. 

In  Ephraim  the  Lord  abides  with  the  disciples  till    John  xi.  64-67. 
the  approach  of  the  Passover.   A  little  before  the  feast, 
many  went  up  out  of  the  country  to  Jerusalem,  to 
perform  the  necessary  purifications,  and  there  was 
much  discussion  as  to  the  probability  of  His  presence. 
He  leaves  Ephraim,  and  begins  His  journey  toward  Je- 
rusalem, passing  along  the  border  line  of  Samaria  and 
Galilee.     Upon   the  way  He  meets   and    heals  ten    Litre  xvii.  11-19. 
lepers.     Being  asked  by  the  Pharisees  when  the  king-    Luke  xvii.  20-87. 
dom  of  God  should  come,  He  replies,  and  adds  the 
parable  of  the  unjust  judge.     To  certain  self-righteous    Luke  xviii.  1-14. 
persons  He  spake  the  parable  of  the  Pharisee  and 

*  So  Teschendorf,  Wieseler. 

•  So  Bitter,  Porter,  Lange,  Liechtenstein,  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible,  Ellicott. 

IV 


38&  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

publican.    He  replies  to  the  question  of  the  Pharisees  Matt.  xix.  3-12. 

respecting  divorce.     Little  children   are  brought  to  Mark  x.  2-12. 

Him,  whom  He  blesses.   As  He  is  journeying,  a  young  Matt.  xix.  13-15. 

man  follows  Him,  to  know  how  he  may  inherit  eter-  Mark  x  13-16. 

nal  life.     Jesus  bids  him  sell  all  that  he  has,  and  Luke  xviii.  15-80. 

follow  Him,  and  proceeds  to  address  the  disciples  Matt.  xix.  16-30. 

upon  the  dangers  incident  to  riches.     In  answer  to  Mark  x.  17-31. 
Peter,  He  speaks  of  the  rewards  that  should  be  given 
the  Twelve,  and  to  all  faithful  disciples.     He  adds  the 

parable  of  the  laborers  in  the  vineyard.  Matt,  xx.  1-16. 

Supposing  the  Lord  to  have  gone  to  Bethany,  beyond 
Jordan,  immediately  after  the  feast  of  Dedication,  or  in 
the  latter  part  of  Deoember,  and  that  He  remained  there 
several  weeks  before  He  heard  that  Lazarus  was  sick,  we 
may  put  His  departure  to  Ephraim  in  the  latter  part  of 
February,  or  early  in  March.  Here  He  continued  till  the 
Passover,  which  fell  this  year  on  the  seventh  of  April.  He 
was  thus  at  Ephraim  about  six  weeks.  How  was  this  time 
spent  ?  It  is  said  by  some,1  that  He  may  have  made  ex- 
cursions to  the  neighboring  villages,  or  even  to  the  Jordan 
valley.  But,  as  His  object  in  seeking  this  secluded  spot  on 
the  edge  of  the  wilderness,  was  to  avoid  the  observation 
of  His  enemies,  till  the  appointed  hour  had  come,  how  could 
He  go  about  the  country,  teaching  and  preaching  ?  The 
place  of  His  retreat  must  thus  have  come  very  speedily  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  Pharisees.  How  little  the  people  at 
large  knew  where  He  was,  appears  from  the  fact  that  those 
who  went  up  early  to  the  feast,  sought  Him  at  Jerusalem, 
Besides  the  position  of  Ephraim,  though  well  fitted  for  seclu- 
sion, was  not  so  for  teaching.  We  conclude,  then,  as  the 
narrative  plainly  implies,  that  He  was  spending  the  few  days 
that  remained  to  Him,  not  amidst  crowds,  nor  renewing  in 
some  scattered  villages  the  labors  of  His  early  ministry  ;  but 
in  the  society  of  His  disciples,  teaching  them  such  truths 
as  they  could  receive,  and  preparing  them  for  their  labors, 

1  So  Robinson,  Har.  201. 


JB8US   DEPARTS   FROM   EPHRAIM.  38 1 

after  He  should  Himself  be  taken  from  them.  Doubtless, 
also,  this  period  gave  Him  many  opportunities  of  solitary 
communion  with  His  Father. 

The  fact  that  He  had  been  present  at  the  last  two  feasts 
in  Jerusalem,  led  the,  people  to  expect  that  Jesus  would 
also  be  present  at  the  Passover.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
as  He  had  withdrawn  from  public  observation,  and  as  the 
Jews  had  endeavored  to  learn  the  place  of  His  concealment 
in  order  to  arrest  Him,  it  was  doubtful  whether  He  would 
dare  to  come  and  brave  their  enmity.  That  many  should 
assemble  before  the  feast,  was  made  necessary  by  the  laws 
respecting  purification.1 

Identifying  Ephraim  with  the  modern  Taiyibeh,  the  dis- 
tance to  the  border  line  of  Galilee  and  Samaria  was  not 
great.  If  He  left  the  former  early  in  the  morning,  He  may 
have  reached  the  latter  in  the  afternoon.  That  He  was 
accompanied  by  others  than  the  Twelve,  appears  from  the 
statement  (Matt.  xx.  17)  that  "He  took  them  apart  in  the 
way  ; "  and  from  the  mention  of  Salome,  (v.  20.)  As  the 
time  for  concealment  was  now  past,  and  it  was  His  purpose 
to  enter  Jerusalem  with  all  publicity,  it  is  probable  that  He 
directed  His  course  to  the  Jordan  with  a  view  to  meet  the 
pilgrims  from  Galilee,  who  took  this  way  to  the  feast.  So 
soon  as  He  came  into  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  He  would 
meet  the  larger  processions  that  came  from  the  neighbor- 
hood of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  by  the  road  down  the  west  bank 
of  the  river ;  and  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jericho  would 
meet  those  who  crossed  the  ford  from  the  eastern  side. 
What  multitudes  attended  the  feasts,  especially  this  feast, 
appears  from  Josephus.'  From  actual  count,  it  appears  that 
at  a  given  Passover  256,500  paschal  lambs  were  slain  ;  and, 
allowing  ten  persons  to  each  lamb,  which  was  the  smallest 
allowable  number,  the  participants  amounted  to  2,565,000 

1  See  Numbers  ix.  10,  and  Ains worth's  note ;  2  Chron.  xxx.  17. 
»  War,  6.  9.  8. 


388  THE  LIFE  OP  OUE  LORD. 

persons.  Admitting  that  this  number  is  greatly  exagger- 
ated, there  is  no  question  that  immense  multitudes  were 
always  present ;  and  all  the  roads  leading  to  Jerusalem,  for 
several  days  before  and  after  the  feasts,  were  thronged  with 
passengers. 

As  to  the  name  or  position  of  the  village  where  the  ten 
lepers  met  Him,  we  know  nothing  more  than  that  it  was  on 
the  border  of  Samaria.  It  would  seem,  from  the  gathering 
together  of  so  many  lepers  in  one  place,  that  the  Lord's 
journey  was  widely  known.  The  title  by  which  they  ad- 
dress Him,  u  Jesus,  Master,"  indicates  faith  in  Him  as  a 
prophet  rather  than  as  Messiah. 

When  or  where  the  question  of  the  Pharisees  (v.  20) 
respecting  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  was 
addressed  to  Him,  we  have  no  data  to  determine.  The 
point  of  the  question  concerns  the  time:  When  wilt 
thou,  announcing  thyself  as  the  Messiah,  visibly  set  up 
thy  kingdom?  Probably  it  was  asked  in  mockery;  but, 
if  honestly  meant,  it  could  not  be  answered  as  a  matter  of 
mere  chronology.  His  words  that  follow,  to  the  disciples, 
(vs.  22-37,)  contain  many  expressions  almost  identical  with 
those  afterward  employed  by  Him  in  His  discourses  re- 
specting the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  (Matt.  24,)  giving 
some  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  here  recorded  out  of 
their  order. 

The  parable  of  the  unjust  judge  stands  in  obvious  con- 
nection with  the  discourse  immediately  preceding;  but 
that  of  the  publican  and  Pharisee  may  have  been  spoken 
later. 

The  question  concerning  divorce  is  found  both  in  Mat- 
thew and  Mark,  and  is  the  first  event  related  by  them  in 
their  account  of  the  last  journey  from  Galilee  to  Judea. 
Whether  it  should  be  inserted  here,  or  took  place  earlier, 
we  have  no  data  to  determine.  Being  mentioned,  however, 
by  them  both  just  before  the  incident  of  the  blessing  of  the 


JESUS   ON   THE  WAY   TO   JERUSALEM.  389 

children,  which  Luke  also  mentions,  this  seems  the  most 
fitting  place.  Perhaps  this  question  may  refer  to  the  dis- 
putes of  the  Jewish  schools,  one  of  which  permitted  divorces 
for  many  causes,  even  very  slight  ones ;  the  other  only  for 
adultery.1 

All  the  Synoptists  mention  the  blessing  of  the  children. 
It  is  plain  that  their  parents  were  those  who  honored  the 
Lord,  and  valued  His  blessing.  Perhaps  it  may  point  to 
His  near  departure  from  this  scene  of  labor.'  The  demand 
of  Jesus  upon  the  young  ruler  to  sell  all  that  he  had  and 
give  to  the  poor,  was  something  unexpected.  Such  a  de- 
mand was  totally  at  variance  with  the  popular  conceptions 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  in  which  all  Jews  confidently  be- 
lieved that  every  form  of  temporal  blessing  would  abound. 
The  question  of  Peter  indicates  how  much  his  thoughts 
were  engrossed  with  the  rewards  and  honor^  of  that  king- 
dom, which  all  now  thought  to  be  near  at  hand. 


Mabch,  783.    a.  d.  30. 

Upon  the  way  to  Jerusalem,  the  disciples  were    Mark  x.  82-84. 
amazed  and  filled  with  fear,  beholding  Jesus  going    Matt.  xx.  17-19. 
before  them.     He  announces  to  the  Twelve  privately    Luke  xviii.  81-34. 
His  approaching  death  and  resurrection,  but  His  words 
were  not  understood.     Afterward  James  and  John,     Matt.  xx.  20-28. 
with  their  mother  Salome,  come  to  Him,  asking  for    Mark  x.  86-45. 
the  seats  of  honor  in  His  kingdom.     He  denies  their 
request.     The  jealousy  of  the  other  apostles. 

Upon  the  way,  and  probably  soon  after  reaching  the 
valley  of  the  Jordan,  He  took  the  Twelve  apart,  and  an- 
nounced to  them,  for  the  third  time,  His  approaching  death, 

»  Ligbtfoot  on  Matt  v.  81,  and  xix.  8. 
*  See  Oosterzee  on  Luke  xviii.  15. 


390  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LOED. 

but  with  greater  particularity  than  before.  He  now  speaks 
of  the  mode  of  His  death  :  that  it  must  be  by  crucifixion  ; 
that  He  should  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  by  them  be  mocked  and  scourged.  That  this  announce- 
ment was  made  early  in  the  journey,  appears  from  the  use 
of  the  present  tense  :  "  Behold  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem."  ' 
Mark  adds,  "  And  Jesus  went  before  them ;  and  they  were 
amazed  ;  and  as  they  followed  they  were  afraid."  As  this 
amazement  and  fear  were  previous  to  His  informing  them 
what  was  about  to  befall  Him,  it  indicates  that  there  was 
something  unusual  in  His  manner,  something  that  awed  and 
appalled  them.'  Luke  informs  us  that,  notwithstanding  the 
Lord's  words  were  so  plain  and  express,  "  they  understood 
none  of  these  things,  and  this  saying  was  hid  from  them, 
neither  knew  they  the  things  which  were  spoken."  An 
undefined  sense  that  some  great  and  awful  event  was  im- 
pending, seems  for  a  little  while  to  have  had  possession  of 
their  minds ;  but,  even  now,  of  its  real  nature  they  had  no 
just  conceptions.  They  knew  why  He  had  sought  refuge 
in  Ephraim,  and  that  to  go  to  Jerusalem  was  to  expose 
Himself  to  the  malice  of  the  Pharisees,  (John  xi.  8  and  16,) 
and  momentary  doubts  of  the  result  troubled  and  depressed 
them.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  they  had  seen  so  many 
proofs  of  His  mighty  power  in  Galilee,  and  the  resurrection 
of  Lazarus  was  so  fresh  in  their  memories,  that  they  could 
not  believe  that  His  life  could  be  taken  by  violence,  or 
against  His  will.  That  He  should  voluntarily  yield  Him- 
self up  as  a  victim,  was  wholly  inconceivable ,  and  His 
plainest  words  could  not  change  their  long  preconceived 
and  deeply-rooted  opinions  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Mes- 
sianic kingdom.    All  His  predictions  respecting  His  suffer- 

1  See  Lichtenstein,  370. 

*  Meyer,  following  a  different  reading,  makes  two  parties  :  some  who  re- 
mained behind  in  their  amazement,  and  others  who  followed  Him,  but  with 
fear.    The  received  text  is  followed  by  Teschendorf  and  Alford. 


AMBITION   OP  JAMES   AND   JOHN.  391 

ings  and  death,  though  explicit  in  the  letter,  they  so  inter- 
preted as  to  harmonize  with  a  victory  over  all  His  enemies, 
and  a  triumphant  reign. 

A  striking  commentary  upon  Luke's  statement,  that  the 
disciples  understood  none  of  the  Lord's  words,  is  found  in 
the  request  of  Salome,  that  her  two  sons,  James  and  John, 
might  fill  the  highest  places  in  His  kingdom.  It  has  al- 
ready been  noted,  that  the  sending  out  of  the  Seventy,  and 
the  peculiar  character  of  this  journey  to  Jerusalem,  had 
awakened  very  strong  expectations  that  the  day  was  very 
near  when  He  would  openly  and  successfully  assert  His 
claims  to  the  throne  of  His  father  David.  Perhaps  Salome 
and  her  sons  may  have  had  in  mind  His  promise,  spoken 
several  months  earlier,  (Matt.  xix.  28,)  that  the  twelve 
apostles  should  sit  in  the  regeneration  on  twelve  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel ;  and  believed  that  the 
time  for  its  fulfilment  was  near.  The  request  was  made  by 
her  in  person,  but  her  sons  were  also  present,  and  the 
Lord's  reply  was  addressed  to  them.  Probably  it  was 
made  some  few  hours  after  He  had  spoken  to  the  Twelve 
of  His  sufferings  and  death ;  perhaps  when  they  were  draw- 
ing near  to  Jericho,  and  had  already  been  joined  by  troops 
of  the  pilgrims  on  their  way  to  the  feast.  The  excitement 
of  the  occasion,  the  tumult  of  the  multitude,  and  the  joy 
and  honor  with  which  the  Lord  was  greeted,  would  natu- 
rally drive  from  their  minds  the  sombre  impression  of  the 
earlier  part  of  the  journey.  What  the  expectations  of 
most  of  those  who  accompanied  Him  were,  clearly  appears 
from  Luke's  words,  (xix.  11:)  "They  thought  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  should  immediately  appear."  Under 
these  circumstances,  it  was  not  strange  that  Salome  and 
her  sons  should  present  their  request. 


392  TILE   LIFE   OF   OUB  LORD. 


March,  783.    a.  d.  30. 

As  in  company  with  the  crowd  of  pilgrims  He  ap-     Luke  xviii.  35-431 
proaches  Jericho,  two  blind  men,  sitting  by  the  way    Matt.  xx.  29-34. 
side  begging,  address  Him  as  the  Son  of  David,  be-    Mask  x.  46-52. 
seeching  Him  to  restore  their  sight.     He  heals  them, 
and  they  follow  Him.     Entering  Jericho,  He  meets    Lukje  xix.  1-10. 
Zaccheus,  and  goes  to  his  house,  where  He  remains 
during  the  night.     In  the  morning,  when  about  to  de- 
part, He  speaks  to  the  people  the  parable  of  the    Luke  xix.  11-28. 
pounds.      He    leaves  Jericho,   and    the    same   day 
reaches  Bethany,  near  Jerusalem. 

The  account  of  the  healing  of  the  blind  men  is  differently 
related  by  the  Synoptists,  both  as  to  the  place  and  the 
number  of  persons.  Matthew  and  Mark  make  it  to  have 
taken  place  as  Jesus  was  leaving  Jericho  ;  Luke,  as  He  was 
entering  it.  Matthew  mentions  two  blind  men  ;  Mark  and 
Luke  mention  but  one.  Of  these  discrepancies  there  are 
several  solutions : 

1st. — That  three  blind  men  were  healed  ;  one  mentioned 
by  Luke,  as  He  approached  the  city ;  two  mentioned  by 
Matthew,  (Mark  speaks  only  of  one,)  as  He  was  leaving  the 
city.1     Some,  as  Osiander,  make  four  to  have  been  healed. 

2d. — That  the  cases  of  healing  were  two,  and  distinct ; 
one  being  on  His  entry  into  the  city,  the  other  on  His  de- 
parture.* According  to  this  solution,  Matthew  combines  the 
two  in  one,  and  deeming  the  exact  time  and  place  unim- 
portant, represents  them  as  both  occurring  at  the  departure 
of  the  Lord  from  the  city. 

3d. — That  two  were  healed,  and  both  at  His  entry ;  but 

1  Kitto,  Augustine,  Morrison. 

2  Lightfoot,  Ebrard,  Krafft,  Tischendorf,  Wieseler,  Greswell,  Bucher,  Lex, 
Neander. 


HEALING   OF  BUND  MEN  AT  JERICHO.  393 

one  being  better  known  than  the  other,  he  only  is  men- 
tioned by  Mark  and  Luke.1 

4th. — That  one  of  the  blind  men  sought  to  be  healed 
as  the  Lord  approached  the  city,  but  was  not ;  that  the 
next  morning,  joining  himself  to  another,  they  waited  for 
Him  by  the  gate,  as  He  was  leaving  the  city,  and  were 
both  healed  together.  Luke,  in  order  to  preserve  the  unity 
of  his  narrative,  relates  the  healing  of  the  former,  as  if  it 
had  taken  place  on  the  afternoon  of  the  entry.1 

5  th. — That  only  one  was  healed,  and  he  when  the  Lord 
left  the  city.  Matthew,  according  to  his  custom,  uses  the 
plural  where  the  other  Evangelists  use  the  singular.' 

6th. — That  Luke's  variance  with  Matthew  and  Mark,  in 
regard  to  place,  may  be  removed  by  interpreting  (xviii.  35) 
"  as  He  was  come  nigh  to  Jericho,"  c  tu>  cyyi&iv  avrov  «s 
Icpixw,  in  the  general  sense  of  being  near  to  Jericho,  but 
without  denning  whether  He  was  approaching  to  it,  or  de- 
parting from  it.  Its  meaning  here  is  determined  by  Mat- 
thew and  Mark :  He  was  leaving  the  city,  but  still  near  to 
it.  Luke,  like  Mark,  mentions  only  the  more  prominent 
person  healed.4 

Other  solutions  of  the  discrepancy  in  regard  to  place, 
have  been  given,  as  by  Newcome,'  that  Jesus  spent  several 
days  at  Jericho,  that  He  went  out  of  the  city,  as  mentioned 
by  Matthew  and  Mark,  for  a  temporary  purpose,  and  that 
on  His  return  He  healed  the  blind  men ;  by  McKnight,8 
that  there  were  two  Jericbos,  old  and  new ;  and  the  blind 
iiR'ii,  sitting  on  the  road  between  them,  were  healed  as  the 
Lord  was  departing  from  one  and  entering  the  other ;  by 

1  Doddridge  in  loco.    Newcome,  Lichtenstein,  Friedlieb. 

*  Bengel,  Stier,  Trench,  Ellicott.      See  a  modification  of  this  view  in 
McKnight,  and  another  in  Lange  on  Matt.  xx.  30. 

*  Ooftterzee  on  Luke ;  Da  Costa. 

*  Grotins  on  Matt.  XX.  80 ;  Clericns,  Disw.  ii.,  Canon  vi. ;  Pilkington,  cited 
in  Townsend  v.  88 ;  Robinson,  Jarvis,  Owen. 

*  Har.,  275.  •  Har.,  ii.  98. 

17* 


394  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD. 

Paulus,  (iii.  44,)  that  there  was  a  multitude  of  pilgrims  with 
Jesus,  and  that  the  front  ranks  of  the  procession  were  leav- 
ing the  city  as  He  was  entering  it. 

Olshausen  and  Riggenbach  decline  to  attempt  to  har- 
monize the  accounts,  regarding  the  differences  as  unimpor- 
tant. Meyer  and  De  Wette  suppose  the  Evangelists  to 
have  followed  different  traditions,  and  find  the  discrepancies 
invincible.  With  them  Alford  agrees  in  substance  :  "  The 
only  fair  account  of  such  differences  is,  that  they  existed  in 
sources  from  which  each  Evangelist  took  his  narrative." 
The  supposition  that  two  were  healed  separately,  or  that 
there  were  two  distinct  miracles  combined  by  Matthew  in 
one,  he  characterizes  as  "  perfectly  monstrous ;  and  would 
at  once  destroy  the  credit  of  Matthew  as  a  truthful  re- 
lator." Norton  (ii.  302)  observes  :  "  The  difference  in  the 
accounts  of  the  Evangelists  is  entirely  unimportant,  except 
as  serving  to  show  that  they  are  independent  historians ; 
and  it  is  idle  to  try  to  make  them  agree  by  the  forced  sup- 
positions, to  which  some  commentators  have  resorted." 
It  is  most  probable  that  two  were  healed,  though  one  only 
is  mentioned  by  Mark  and  Luke. 

None  of  the  Evangelists  state  at  what  time  of  the  day 
Jesus  reached  Jericho,  but  it  was  probably  in  the  after- 
noon. The  distance  to  Jerusalem,  and  the  nature  of  the 
country  through  which  the  road  passed,  may  have  made  it 
difficult  or  impossible  to  go  on  to  Bethany  that  night,  and 
there  was  no  intervening  village  where  they  could  encamp. 
That  Jesus  did  spend  the  night  at  Jericho,  appears  from 
His  words  to  Zaccheus,  (Luke  xix.  5,)  "  To-day  I  must 
abide  at  thy  house ; "  and  from  the  murmurings  of  the  peo- 
ple, (v.  7,)  "  That  He  was  gone  to  be  a  guest,  (KaToAwot,) 
with  a  man  that  is  a  sinner."  ■  This  visit  of  the  Lord  to  the 
house  of  a  publican,  although  a  chief  among  his  class,  and 

»  For  this  usage  of  Kara\wreut  see  Luke  ix.  12 ;  bo  Meyer,  Alford,  Grea- 

well,  Licbtensteiu. 


JESUS   AT   HOUSE  OF   ZACCHEUS.  395 

rich,  did  not  escape  strong  animadversion.  It  was  regarded 
by  the  people  at  large,  and  perhaps  also  by  some  of  His 
own  disciples,  as  an  act  unworthy  of  His  high  claims.  In 
popular  estimation,  publicans,  whose  calling  so  odiously  re- 
minded them  of  Roman  domination,  were  no  fit  hosts  for 
Him  whom  they  fondly  believed  to  be  now  on  His  way  to 
Jerusalem  to  proclaim  Himself  the  king.  The  conversation 
between  the  Lord  and  Zaccheus  (vs.  8-10)  apparently  took 
place  in  the  court  of  his  house,  or  near  the  entrance,  where 
the  crowd  had  followed.  Olshausen  supposes  it  to  have 
been  on  the  morning  of  His  departure,  but  there  is  no  good 
ground  for  this.  It  is  not  certain  where  the  parable  of  the 
nobleman  (vs.  11-27)  was  spoken,  but  it  would  seem  from 
the  connection  that  He  was  still  standing  by  the  door  of 
Zaccheus'  house.1  Some,  who  suppose  that  He  merely 
passed  a  few  hours  with  Zaccheus,  and  then  journeyed  on 
toward  Bethany  the  same  day,  make  all  from  vs.  8-27  to 
have  been  spoken  at  His  departure.*  We  need  not,  how- 
ever, understand  v.  28  as  meaning  that,  immediately  after 
He  had  uttered  the  parable,  He  went  up  to  Jerusalem. 

Of  Zaccheus  little  more  is  known  than  is  here  related. 
He  was  not,  as  some  have  said,  a  heathen ;  but,  as  appears 
both  from  his  name  and  from  v.  9,  of  Jewish  descent."  He 
was  a  chief  publican,  or  head  collector  of  the  taxes,  having 
the  other  publicans  of  that  region  under  him.  Jericho  was 
rich  in  balsams,  and  therefore  much  toll  was  collected  here. 
According  to  tradition,  Zaccheus  became  bishop  of  CaBsa- 
rea.  A  tower,  standing  in  the  modern  village  of  Riha,  is 
still  shown  as  the  "  house  of  Zaccheus." 

1  So  Meyer,  Lichtenatein.  »  Oosterzee  in  loco;  Stier,  iv.  318. 

•  So  Meyer,  Alford. 


PART  VI. 

FROM  THE  ARRIVAL  AT  BETHANY  TO  THE  RESURRECTION; 
OR  FROM  MARCH  31st  (8th  NISAN)  TO  APRIL  9th  (17th  NISAN) 
783.   A.D.  80. 


Friday,  31st  March — Saturday,  1st  April. 

Arriving  at  Bethany,  He  abides  there  for  the  night    John  xii.  1-9. 
The  next  day  He  sups  with  Simon,  a  leper, — Lazarus,     Matt.  xxvi.  6-13. 
Martha,  and  Mary  being  present     Here  He  is  anointed    Mark  xiv.  8-9. 
by  Mary,  while  Judas  and  others  are  angry  at  so  great 
waste.     At  even,  many  come  out  of  Jerusalem  to  see 
Him  and  Lazarus.     The  rulers  in  the  city  hearing  this,    John  xii.  10,  11. 
consult  how  they  may  put  Lazarus  also  to  death. 

The  date  of  the  arrival  at  Bethany  is  to  be  determined 
from  the  statement  of  John,  (xii.  1,)  that  He  came  "  six  days 
before  the  Passover."  But  how  shall  these  six  days  be 
reckoned  ?  Shall  both  extremes,  the  day  of  His  arrival  and 
the  Passover,  be  included,  or  both  excluded  ?  or  one  inclu- 
ded and  one  excluded  ?  The  latter  mode  of  computation 
is  more  generally  received.  Adopting  this  mode,  we  reckon 
from  the  Passover  exclusive  to  the  day  of  arrival  inclusive. 
But  here  a  new  question  meets  us.  What  day  shall  be 
reckoned  as  the  Passover,  the  14th  or  15th  Nisan?    The 


ABRTVAL  AT  BETHANY.  397 

language  of  Moses  is  express,  (Levit.  xxtii.  5,)  "In  the 
fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month  at  even  is  the  Lord's 
Passover."  Counting  backward  from  the  fourteenth  and 
excluding  it,  the  sixth  day,  or  the  day  of  the  arrival  at  Beth- 
any, was  the  8th  Nisan.1  What  day  of  the  week  was  this  ? 
If  the  fourteenth  fell  on  Thursday,  the  eighth  was  on  Fri- 
day preceding ;  if  on  Friday,  the  eighth  was  on  Saturday, 
or  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 

Owing  to  these  differences  in  the  modes  of  computation, 
very  different  results  are  reached  by  harmonists.  Robin- 
son, including  both  extremes,  and  counting  from  the  four- 
teenth, or  Thursday,  makes  Him  to  have  arrived  on  Satur- 
day the  ninth.  Strong,  computing  the  same  way,  but 
making  the  fourteenth  to  fall  on  Friday,  makes  the  arrival 
on  Sunday  the  tenth.  Greswell,  including  one  extreme, 
and  placing  the  Passover  on  Friday,  makes  it  to  have  been 
on  Saturday.  Luthardt,  counting  Thursday  the  15th  as 
the  Passover,  makes  it  to  have  been  on  Sunday.  Most, 
however,  making  the  fourteenth  Thursday,  place  it  on  Fri- 
day the  eighth.'  And  this  seems,  on  other  grounds,  the 
most  likely.  That  Jesus  would,  without  necessity,  travel 
on  the  Sabbath,  we  cannot  suppose ;  much  less  that  He 
would  go  on  that  day  from  Jericho  to  Bethany,  a  distance 
of  twelve  or  fifteen  miles.'  Some,  as  Robinson,  suppose 
that  He  went  on  that  day  only  a  Sabbath  day's  journey ; 
but  that  He  should  have  come  on  Friday  so  near,  and  then 
have  encamped,  to  finish  the  journey  after  sunset  of  the 
Sabbath,  is  not  probable.  The  supposition  of  Greswell, 
that  He  spent  that  night  at  the  house  of  Zaccheus,  who 
lived  between  Jericho  and  Bethany,  and  went  on  to  Beth- 
any the  next  day,  is  wholly  without  proof,  and,  besides, 
does  not  meet  the  difficulty.    We  infer  that  He  did  journey 

»  So  Meyer,  Alford. 

•  Friedlieb,  Bucher,  Wieseler,  Lichtenstein,  Tholuck. 

•  Wieseler,  878. 


398  THE  LIFE  OF   OUE  LOED. 

directly  from  Jericho  to  Bethany  •  first,  from  the  fact  that 
the  whole  intervening  country  is  a  wilderness,  without  city 
or  village,  where  no  one  would,  without  necessity,  spend 
the  night ;  second,  that  He  was  with  the  crowd  of  pilgrims, 
whose  course  was  direct  to  Jerusalem,  and  who  would  nat- 
urally so  arrange  their  movements  as  to  reach  it  before  the 
Sabbath.  9 

We  can  easily  understand  why  the  Lord  should  desire 
to  stop  at  Bethany  rather  than  go  on  to  the  city.  Here 
He  found  repose  and  peace  in  a  household,  whose  members 
were  bound  to  Him  by  the  strongest  ties ;  and  here,  in  se* 
elusion  and  quiet,  He  could  prepare  Himself  for  the  trials 
and  anguish  of  the  coming  week  ;  and  here  continued  to  be 
His  home  till  His  arrest. 

The  distance  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem  is,  according  to 
Josephus,1  a  hundred  and  fifty  furlongs ;  and  from  the  Jor- 
dan to  Jericho,  sixty.  Porter  estimates  the  former  at  five 
and  a  half  hours,  and  the  latter  at  two  hours.  From  Jeri- 
cho to  Bethany  is  about  fifteen  miles ;  and  all  travellers 
agree  in  describing  the  way  as  most  difficult  and  dreary. 

It  is  much  disputed  when  the  supper  was  made  for 
the  Lord.  John  merely  says :  "  Then  Jesus,  six  days  be- 
fore the  Passover,  came  to  Bethany — there  they  made  Him 
a  supper."  This  does  not  determine  whether  the  supper 
was  upon  the  day  of  His  arrival,  or  the  next,  or  even  later ; 
still  the  more  obvious  interpretation  is,  that  it  was  that  day 
or  the  next.  He  also  gives  us  another  note  of  time,  in  v. 
12  ;  "  On  the  next  day  much  people . . .  took  branches  of  palm 
trees,"  <fcc.  But  to  what  is  this  "  next  day  "  related  ;  to 
the  events  immediately  preceding  (vs.  9,  10)  the  visit  of 
many  of  the  Jews  to  Bethany,  and  the  consultation  of  the 
chief  priests,  or  to  the  day  of  His  arrival  at  Bethany  ?  If  to 
the  latter,  as  by  Meyer,  the  supper  must  have  been  in  the 
evening  of  the  day  of  His  arrival ;  if  to  the  former,  as  by 

>  War,  4.  8.  8. 


SUPPER   AT   BETHANY.  399 

Friedlieb,  it  is  left  undetermined.  Those  who  put  His  arrival 
at  Bethany  on  Saturday,  or  Sunday,  put  the  supper  on  the 
evening  of  the  same  day  ;  but  most  of  those  who  put  the  ar- 
rival on  Friday,  put  the  supper  on  the  following  evening,  or 
the  evening  of  the  Sabbath.  And  this  seems  most  prob- 
able ;  for  the  language,  "  there  they  made  Him  a  supper," 
implies  that  it  was  a  feast  given  specially  in  His  honor,  and 
not  an  ordinary  repast.1  The  presence  of  the  Jews  from 
Jerusalem,  at  Bethany,  is  thus,  too,  most  easily  explained ; 
the  sojourn  of  Jesus  over  the  Sabbath  giving  ample  time 
for  His  arrival  to  become  known,  and  for  all  who  wished  to 
visit  Him. 

That  the  supper  mentioned  by  Matthew  (xxvi.  6-13) 
and  Mark,  (xiv.  3-9,)  is  identical  with  this  of  John,  has 
been  questioned,  but  without  good  grounds.'  But  if  iden- 
tical, why  do  the  former  place  it  in  such  direct  relation  to 
that  assembling  of  the  chief  priests  which  took  place  two 
days  before  the  Passover  ?  From  this  relation  many  have 
inferred  that  Matthew  and  Mark  narrate  it  in  chronological 
order,  and  that  John  mentions  it  by  anticipation.*  If  so,  it 
was  upon  the  evening  following  Tuesday.  But  the  argu- 
ments for  this  order,  are  not  convincing.  A  close  exami- 
nation of  Matt.  xxvi.  and  Mark  xiv.,  shows  us  that  the  ac- 
count of  the  supper  is  brought  in  parenthetically.  Two 
days  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  the  chief  priests  and 
elders  hold  a  council  at  the  palace  of  Caiaphas,  the  high 
priest,  and  consult  how  they  may  kill  Jesus.  They  dare 
not  arrest  Him  openly,  and  with  violence,  but  will  do  it  by 
subtlety ;  yet,  even  this  they  fear  to  do  during  the  feast. 
The  result  of  their  consultation  thus  was,  that  the  arrest 
be  postponed  till  the  feast  was  past.     But  the  Lord  had 

•  As  to  feasts  upon  the  Sabbath,  see  Luke  xiv.  1 ;  Winer,  ii.  47  and  346. 

•  Lightfoot,  Clericus,  A.  Clarke,  McKnigbt,  Whitby,  make  them  distinct. 
See,  contra.  Michaelis  in  Townsend,  part  v.  note  37. 

•  Bjnaeus,  Newcome,  Robinson,  Da  Costa,  Wichelaus,  Owen. 


400  THE  LIFE  OP   OUB  LOED. 

declared,  that  after  two  days  was  the  Passover,  and  then 
He  should  be  betrayed  to  be  crucified.  Matthew  and  Mark, 
therefore,  proceed  to  show  how  the  Lord's  words  were  ful- 
filled through  the  treachery  of  Judas,  and  the  priests  and 
elders  made  to  change  their  resolution.  This  apostate, 
coming  to  the  priests,  offers  to  betray  Him  into  their  hands, 
and  will  do  it  so  soon  as  an  opportunity  presents.  Thus 
the  matter  is  left  between  Judas  and  them,  and  they  await 
his  action. 

Turning  now  to  the  account  of  the  supper,  we  ask  why 
it  is  thus  interposed  between  the  consultation  of  the  priests 
and  the  action  of  Judas  ?  Plainly  that  it  may  explain  his 
action.  He  was  offended  that  so  much  money  should  be 
wasted  at  the  anointing  of  the  Lord,  and  in  his  covetous- 
ness,  as  here  revealed,  we  find  the  explanation  of  his  subse- 
quent treachery.  But  it  is  said  that  neither  Matthew  nor 
Mark  make  any  special  mention  of  Judas  at  the  supper, 
and,  therefore,  give  no  explanation  of  his  treachery.  They 
say  only  that  certain  of  the  disciples  were  displeased.  It 
must  be  admitted,  that  had  we  not  the  narrative  of  John, 
it  would  not  be  obvious  why  they  should  mention  this  sup- 
per in  this  connection.  There  may  be  some  reason,  un- 
known to  us,  why  they  omit  the  name  of  Judas,  as  the  one 
chiefly  offended.  Yet,  even  with  this  omission,  an  impar- 
tial reader  could  hardly  fail  to  infer  that  Matthew  and  Mark 
design  to  say  that  Judas,  the  one  of  the  Twelve  who  went 
to  the  priests  to  betray  Jesus,  was  one  of  those  that  had 
indignation ;  and  that  to  the  supper  at  Bethany  we  may 
trace  the  immediate  origin  of  the  treachery  they  relate. 
Some,  however,  think  the  supper  to  be  mentioned  here 
upon  other  grounds.1  There  is  nothing  in  the  language 
of  Matthew  or  Mark,  which  necessarily  implies  that  this 
supper  took  place  two  days  before  the  Passover ;  for  the 

»  Ebrard,  474;  Strong,  Har.,  note  51. 


SECOND  ANOINTING  OP  JESUS.  401 

statement  of  the  former,  (v.  14,)  "Then  Judas  . . .  went  unto 
the  chief  priests,"  does  not  connect  the  time  of  his  visit 
with  the  supper,  but  with  their  council,  (vs.  3-5.)  All  be- 
tween vs.  5-14,  comes  in  parenthetically  as  an  explanatory 
statement.  But  against  this  it  is  objected,1  that  Judas 
would  not  have  cherished  a  purpose  of  treachery  four  days 
in  his  heart  without  executing  it.  But  the  betrayal  of  his 
Lord  was  not  a  hasty,  passionate  act,  done  in  a  moment  of 
excitement.  It  was  done  coolly,  deliberately ;  and  this  is 
what  gave  it  its  atrocious  character.  Greswell  remarks  (iii. 
129)  that  "this  history  is  divisible  into  three  stages,  each 
of  which  has  been  accurately  defined ;  the  first  cause  and 
conception  of  his  purpose ;  the  overt  step  toward  its  exe- 
cution ;  and  lastly,  its  consummation.  The  consummation 
took  place  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane ;  the  overt  step 
was  the  compact  with  the  Sanhedrim ;  the  first  cause  and 
conception  of  the  purpose,  if  they  are  to  be  traced  up  to 
any  tiling  on  record,  must  be  referred  to  what  happened  at 
Bethany." 

Although  Matthew  and  Mark  speak  of  Jesus  as  being 
in  the  house  of  Simon  the  leper,  yet  many  have  supposed 
that  the  supper  was  made  by  the  family  of  Lazarus, 
principally  from  the  fact  that  "Martha  served."  But 
against  this  is  the  fact  that  Lazarus  appears  not  as  the 
matter  of  the  feast,  but  as  a  guest.  According  to  some,  it 
was  a  feast  prepared  in  common  by  the  disciples  and 
friends  of  the  Lord  at  Bethany,  and  held  at  the  house 
of  Simon.  Of  Simon  we  have  no  knowledge ;  but  it  is 
probable  that  he  was  a  leper,  and  had  been  healed  by  the 
Lord.  One  tradition  makes  him  to  have  been  the  father 
of  Lazarus.'  Another  makes  him  to  have  been  the  husband 
of  Martha.*  We  may  readily  believe  that,  although  the 
supper  was  at  the  house  of  Simon,  Martha  and  Mary  may 

>  Robinson,  Har.  210.  *  See  Ewald,  r.  401,  who  defends  it 

•  Winer,  ii.  464. 


402  THE   LIFE    OF   OUR   LOED. 

have  been  active  helpers  in  its  preparation.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  suppose  any  kindred  to  explain  Martha's  ser- 
vice, for  she  would  gladly  honor  her  Lord,  to  whom  she 
was  so  deeply  indebted,  by  every  act  of  personal  attention 
it  was  in  her  power  to  render. 

How  often  the  Lord  was  anointed,  and  by  whom,  has 
been  much  discussed  by  harmonists  and  commentators  from 
the  earliest  times.  Some  have  affirmed  that  Luke  (vil  37) 
mentions  one  anointing ;  Matthew  (xxvi.  7)  and  Mark 
(xiv.  3)  another ;  and  John  (xil  3)  a  third.  But  most  have 
affirmed  two  anointings ;  some  identifying  the  narratives  of 
Luke  and  John,1  but  more  identifying  that  of  John  with 
those  of  Matthew  and  Mark.'  A  few,  as  Grotius,  affirm 
that  He  was  but  once  anointed,  making  the  narratives  of 
the  Evangelists  all  to  refer  to  the  same  event.  It  is  now 
generally  held  that  there  were  two  anointings ;  that  men- 
tioned by  Lute,  and  that  mentioned  by  the  other  Evan- 
gelists.* In  regard  to  the  persons  by  whom  the  Lord  was 
anointed,  there  has  been  like  difference  of  opinion.  It  is 
plain  from  John,  (xi.  2,)  that  Mary  the  sister  of  Lazarus 
anointed  Him  once ;  and  we  cannot  doubt  that  she  is  the 
person  alluded  to  by  John,  (xii.  3,)  and  by  Matthew  and 
Mark.  By  whom  was  He  anointed  upon  the  occasion 
mentioned  by  Luke  ?  Many  affirm  that  this  was  also  done 
by  the  same  Mary.4  This  opinion  is  the  ruling  one  in  the 
Romish  Church,  being  sanctioned  in  her  ritual.  The  Greek 
Church,  on  the  other  hand,  holds  them  to  be  different  per- 
sons.* We  can  scarcely  believe  that  the  sister  of  Lazarus, 
a  member  of  that  family  whose  society  the  Lord  seems 


*  Jerome,  chiefly  because  both  mention  the  anointing  of  the  feet 

*  Augustine,  Calvin,  Bynaeus. 

*  So  Newcome,  Trench,  Teschendorf,  Robinson,  Meyer. 

*  So  Augustine,  who  refers  to  John  xi.  2,  as  showing  that  Mary  would  not 
be  thus  spoken  of  had  there  been  another  person  who  had  done  a  like  act. 

6  Origen  and  Chrysostom. 


KNTRY  INTO  JERUSALEM.  403 

often  to  have  sought,  whom  He  loved,  and  whose  name  is 
associated  in  onr  minds  with  His  words  of  praise,  (Luke 
x.  42,)  could  have  been  ever  a  professed  harlot,  for  such  it 
would  appear  was  "  the  sinner  »  of  whom  Luke  speaks,  (viL 
37.)1  As  the  anointings  muBt  be  distinguished  from  each 
other  as  to  time  and  place,  there  is  also  no  sufficient  reason 
why  the  persons  anointing  should  be  identified." 

We  give  the  following  as  the  probable  order  of  events. 
Jesus,  leaving  Jericho  on  the  morning  of  Friday,  reaches 
Bethany  in  the  afternoon,  perhaps  about  sunset.  He  leaves 
the  pilgrims  with  whom  He  has  journeyed,  and  who  go  on 
to  Jerusalem,  and  with  His  apostles,  stops  till  the  Sabbath 
should  be  past ;  they  being  probably  received  by  some  of 
His  friends,  and  He  Himself  doubtless  finding  a  home  in 
the  dwelling  of  Lazarus  and  his  sisters.  The  next  day, 
being  the  Sabbath,  is  spent  at  Bethany,  and  in  the  after- 
noon Simon  the  leper  makes  Him  a  supper,  at  which  His 
disciples,  and  Lazarus  and  his  sisters,  were  present.  During 
the  afternoon  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem,  who  had  heard  through 
the  pilgrims  of  His  arrival,  go  out  to  see  Him  and  Lazarus, 
and  some  of  them  believe  on  Him.  This,  coming  to  the 
ears  of  the  chief  priests,  leads  to  a  consultation  how  Lazarus 
may  be  put  to  death  with  Jesus. 


Sunday,  2d  April,  10th  Nisan,  783.    a.  d.  30. 

Leaving  Bethany,  He  sends  to  Bethphagejfor  an  ass  Matt.  xxi.  1-11. 

upon  which  to  ride,  and  sitting  upon  it  He  enters  Jeru-  Mark  xi.  1-10. 

salem  amidst  the  shouts  of  His  disciples,  and  of  the  Luke  xix.  29-44. 

populace.    As  He  looks  upon  the  city  from  the  Mount  John  xii.  12-19. 
of  Olives  He  weeps  over  it     All  the  city  is  greatly 
moved,  and  the  Pharisees  desire  Him  to  rebuke  His 

1  See  note  upon  this  passage,  p.  259. 

*  As  to  the  opinion  of  some  that  this  Mary  is  the  same  as  Mary  Magda- 
lene, see  page  260. 


404  THE  LIFE  OP  OUR  LOBD. 

disciples.      He  visits  the  temple ;  but,  after  looking    Mark  xi.  11. 
around  Him,  leaves  it,  and  goes  out  with  the  Twelve 
to  Bethany,  where  He  passes  the  night. 

Placing  the  Lord's  arrival  at  Bethany  on  Friday,  the 
supper  and  anointing  on  Saturday,  His  solemn  entry  into 
the  city  took  place  on  Sunday.1  As  to  the  hour  of  the 
entry  nothing  is  said,  but  from  Mark  xi.  11  it  appears  that 
it  was  late  in  the  afternoon  when  He  entered  the  temple ; 
and,  as  no  events  intermediate  are  mentioned,  the  entry 
into  the  temple  seems  to  have  been  soon  after  the  entry 
into  the  city.  It  was,  then,  probably  near  the  middle  of 
the  day  when  He  left  Bethany.  Luthardt,  who  puts  the 
supper  on  Sunday,  makes  the  entry  to  have  been  still  later 
upon  the  same  day;  but  this  would  have  brought  it  to 
the  verge  of  evening.  Greswell  puts  His  departure  from 
Bethany  about  the  ninth  hour,  or  3  p.  m.  ;  his  arrival  in 
the  temple  before  the  eleventh,  His  departure  before  sun- 
set. 

The  position  of  Bethphage,  "  house  of  figs,"  which  is 
mentioned  by  the  Synoptists  in  connection  with  Bethany, 
is  much  disputed.  It  may  be  inferred  from  Mark,  (xi.  1,) 
"  And  when  they  came  nigh  to  Jerusalem,  unto  Bethphage 
and  Bethany,  at  the  Mount  of  Olives,"  and  the  like  expression 
in  Luke  xix.  29,  that  they  were  two  distinct  yet  adjacent  vil- 
lages ;  but  their  relative  positions  to  each  other  are  not  defined. 
From  the  fact,  however,  that  Bethphage  is  first  mentioned, 
the  journey  being  from  Jericho  to  Jerusalem,  or  from  east 
to  west,  it  is  supposed  that  it  was  first  reached,  and  there- 
fore east  of  Bethany."  Others,  however,  maintain  that  the 
Evangelists  in  their  narratives  take  Jerusalem  as  the  cen- 
tre, and  mention  Bethphage  first,  because  first  reached  by 

1  So  Lichtenstein,  Robinson,  Wieseler,  Bucher,  Friedlieb,  Wichelhaus, 
Meyer. 

*  Winer,  i.  174;  Robinson,  Meyer. 


BETHPHAGE  AND  BETHANY.  405 

one  going  to  the  east.1  Another  reason  for  this  order  is 
given  by  Greswell,  (iii.  75  :)  u  Bethphage  lay  npon  the  di- 
rect line  of  this  route,  but  Bethany  did  not ;  so  that  one 
travelling  from  Jericho  would  come  to  Bethphage  first,  and 
would  have  to  turn  off  from  the  road  to  go  to  Bethany." 
Lightfoot,  (x.  76,)  relying  upon  Talmudical  authorities,  would 
put  Bethphage  just  under  the  city  walls,  and  ascribe  to  it 
the  same  privileges  as  if  actually  within  them.  "  The  first 
space  from  the  city,  toward  the  Mount  of  Olives,  was  called 
Bethphage."  He  also  speaks  of  "Bethphage  within  the 
walls  and  Bethphage  without  the  walls."  In  like  manner 
Alford  speaks  of  it :  "A  considerable  suburb,  nearer  to 
Jerusalem  than  Bethany,  and  sometimes  reckoned  part  of 
the  city."  *  A  late  tradition  marks  its  site  as  about  100 
paces  below  the  top  of  the  Mount,  toward  the  east ;  but  no 
traces  of  ruins,  according  to  Robinson,  exist  there.  Some 
suppose  that  Bethphage  and  Bethany  are  only  designations 
for  different  parts  of  the  same  village.* 

In  his  recent  investigations  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Jerusalem,  Barclay  (65)  found  a  site  which  he  imagines  to 
answer  all  the  demands  of  the  narrative.  It  is  upon  "  a 
spur  of  Olivet,  distant  rather  more  than  a  mile  from  the 
city,  situated  between  two  deep  valleys,  on  which  there  are 
tanks,  foundations,  and  other  indubitable  evidences  of  the 
former  existence  of  a  village."  This  seems  to  be  the  same 
site  to  which  Porter  refers,  upon  the  projecting  point  of  a 
ridge,  and  marked  by  "scarped  rocks,  cisterns,  and  old 
stones." 

Without  attempting  to  define  the  exact  position  of 
Bethphage,  we  may  thus  arrange  the  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  Lord's  departure  from  Bethany  :•  Leaving 
this  village  on  foot,  attended  by  His^ disciples  and  others, 

»  Lichtenstein,  Ellicott.  »  So  Wieseler,  485,  note. 

*  So  Porter,  (i.  188,)  who  refers  to  the  similarity  of  their  names,  "  house 
of  figs  "  and  "  house  of  dates." 


406  THE  LIFE   OP  OUE  LOED. 

He  comes  to  the  place  where  the  neighboring  village  of 
Bethphage  is  in  view,  over  against  them,  perhaps  separated 
from  them  by  a  valley.  At  this  point  He  arrests  His  march, 
and  sends  two  of  His  disciples ;  to  find  and  bring  to  Him  an 
ass  tied,  and  her  colt  with  her.  When  her  owners  de- 
manded of  them  why  they  took  the  ass,  they  had  only  to 
say  that  the  Lord  had  need  of  it,  and  the  sight  of  Jesus, 
with  the  attendant  crowds,  would  at  once  explain  why  He 
needed  it.  It  is  not,  therefore,  necessary  to  suppose  that 
the  owners  were  His  disciples ;  much  less  that  any  previous 
arrangement  had  been  made  with  them.  Some  would 
make  the  village  where  the  ass  was  found,  a  village  in  the 
vicinity,  distinct  from  Bethphage.1  But  there  is  no  neces- 
sity for  this.  The  animal  being  brought  to  Him,  He  is 
seated  upon  it,  and,  amidst  the  acclamations  of  the  multi- 
tude, ascends  to  the  top  of  the  Mount. 

As  both  the  ass  and  her  colt  were  brought,  it  has  been 
questioned  upon  which  the  Lord  rode.  But  Mark  and 
Luke  are  express  that  it  was  the  colt.8  The  multitude  that 
accompanied  the  Lord  was  composed,  in  part,  of  those 
going  up  to  the  city  from  the  neighborhood,  and  of  the  pil- 
grims from  Galilee  and  Perea  on  their  way  thither ;  and,  in 
part,  of  those  who,  hearing  of  His  coming,  had  gone  out 
from  the  city  to  meet  Him,  (John  xii.  12, 13.)  It  is  prob- 
able that  most  of  the  latter  were  pilgrims,  not  inhabitants 
of  the  city,  and  are  spoken  of  by  John  as  "  people  that  were 
come  to  the  feast."  The  priests,  and  scribes,  and  Pharisees, 
stood  as  angry  or  contemptuous  spectators,  and  not  only 
refused  to  join  in  the  rejoicings  and  hosannas,  but  bade 
Him  rebuke  His  disciples,  and  command  them  to  be  silent, 
(Luke  xix.  39.) 

The  road  by  which  the  Lord  passed  over  Olivet  was 
probably  the  southern  or  main  road,  which  passes  between 

*  Ebrard,  477 ;  Greswell,  iii.  78. 
1  See  Ebrard,  480 ;  Meyer  in  loco. 


TBITJMPHAL  ENTBY   INTO  JEEUSALEM.  407 

the  summit  which  contains  the  Tombs  of  the  Prophets,  and 
that  called  the  Mount  of  Offence.  This  was  the  usual  road 
for  horsemen  and  caravans ;  a  steep  footpath  leads  over 
the  central  peak,  and  a  winding  road  over  the  northern 
shoulder,  neither  of  which  could  He  have  taken.  Stanley 
(187)  thus  describes  the  procession :  u  Two  vast  streams  of 
people  met  on  that  day.  The  one  poured  out  from  the 
city,  and,  as  they  came  through  the  gardens  whose  clusters 
of  palm  rose  on  the  southeastern  corner  of  Olivet,  they  cut 
down  the  long  branches,  as  was  their  wont  at  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  and  moved  upward  toward  Bethany  with 
loud  shouts  of  welcome.  From  Bethany  streamed  forth 
the  crowds  who  had  assembled  there  the  previous  night. 
The  road  soon  loses  sight  of  Bethany  . .  .  The  two  streams 
met  midway.  Half  of  the  vast  mass,  turning  round,  pre- 
ceded ;  the  other  half  followed.  Gradually  the  long  pro- 
cession swept  up  over  the  ridge  where  first  begins  '  the 
descent  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  ■  toward  Jerusalem.  At 
this  point  the  first  view  is  caught  of  the  southeastern  cor- 
ner of  the  city.  The  temple  and  the  more  northern  por- 
tions are  hid  by  the  slope  of  Olivet  on  the  right ;  what  is 
seen  is  only  Mount  Zion ...  It  was  at  this  precise  point, ■  as 
He  drew  near,  at  the  descent  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,'  (may 
it  not  have  been  from  the  sight  thus  opening  upon  them  ?) 
that  the  shout  of  triumph  burst  forth  from  the  multitude : 
*  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David !  Blessed  is  He  that 
cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ! '  Again  the  procession 
advanced.  The  road  descends  a  slight  declivity,  and  the 
glimpse  of  the  city  is  again  withdrawn  behind  the  inter- 
vening ridge  of  Olivet.  A  few  moments,  and  the  path 
mounts  again ;  it  climbs  a  rugged  ascent ;  it  reaches  a 
ledge  of  smooth  rock,  and  in  an  instant  the  whole  city 
bursts  into  view.  It  is  hardly  possible  to  doubt  that  this 
rise  and  turn  of  the  road,  this  rocky  ledge,  was  the  exact 


408  THE  LIFE  OP   OUE  LORD. 

point  where  the  multitude  paused  again ;  and  '  He,  when 
He  beheld  the  city,'  wept  over  it." 

Tradition  makes  the  Lord  to  have  crossed  the  summit 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  puts  the  spot  where  He  wept 
over  the  city  about  half-way  down  on  its  western  slope.1 

This  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem,  "  the  city  of  the 
great  king,"  was  a  formal  assertion  of  His  Messianic  claims. 
It  was  the  last  appeal  to  the  Jews  to  discern  and  recognize 
His  royal  character.  He  came  as  a  king,  and  permitted 
His  disciples  and  the  multitude  to  pay  Him  kingly  honors. 
He  received,  as  rightly  belonging  to  Him,  the  acclamations, 
"  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David  !  Blessed  is  He  that  cometh 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  "  Blessed  be  the  kingdom  of  our 
father  David,  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.'' 
"Blessed  be  the  king  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  th« 
Lord :  peace  in  heaven  and  glory  in  the  highest."  "  Ho- 
sanna !  Blessed  is  the  King  of  Israel,  that  cometh  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  He  was  the  Son  of  David,  the  King 
of  Israel,  coming  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  But,  although 
this  triumphal  entry  excited  general  attention — "all  the 
city  was  moved,"  (Matt,  xxl  10,)  yet  it  is  plain  from  the 
question  put  by  the  citizens,  "  Who  is  this  ?  "  that,  as  a 
body,  they  had  taken  little  part  in  the  matter.  "  And  the 
multitude  said,  This  is  Jesus,  the  prophet  of  Nazareth  of 
Galilee,"  (v.  11.)  This  multitude,  thus  distinguished  from 
the  citizens,  consisted  doubtless  of  those  who  had  escorted 
Him  from  Bethany,  and  who  were  mostly  Galileans ;  and 
their  answer,  as  remarked  by  Meyer,  seems  to  show  a  kind 
of  local  pride  in  Him  as  from  Galilee,  their  own  prophet. 
But  this  very  answer  was  peculiarly  adapted  to  set  the 
people  of  Judea  against  Him.     (See  John  vii.  52.) 

The  visit  to  the  temple,  and  its  purification,  are  put  by 
Matthew  (xxi.  12)  as  if  immediately  following  the  entry  ; 

*  See  Van  de  Velde's  Map  of  Jerusalem;  Ellicott,  288,  note  L 


JESUS  RETURNS  TO  BETHANY.  409 

but  Mark  (xi.  11)  states  that  He  merely  entered  the  tem- 
ple, and,  looking  around  Him,  went  out  because  the  even 
had  come,  and  returned  to  Bethany  with  the  Twelve. 
Luke  (xix.  45)  gives  us  no  mark  of  time.  The  statement 
of  Mark  is  so  precise,  that  we  cannot  hesitate  to  give  it  the 
preference.1  Some  suppose  the  Lord  to  have  twice  purified 
the  temple ;  on  the  day  of  His  entry,  and  again  the  next 
day.*  Others,  that  He  began  it  on  one  day  and  finished  it 
on  the  next,  cleansing  first  the  inner  and  then  the  outer 
court.  Patritius  makes  Him  to  have  healed  the  blind  and 
lame,  to  have  answered  the  priests  and  scribes,  (Matt.  xxi. 
14-16,)  and  to  have  heard  the  request  of  the  Greeks,  (John 
xil  20-22,)  on  this  first  entry.  Alford's  supposition,'  that 
Mark  relates  the  triumphal  entry  a  day  too  soon ;  that 
Jesus,  in  fact,  first  entered  the  city  privately,  noticed  the 
abuses  in  the  temple,  and,  returning  to  Bethany  the  next 
day,  made  His  triumphal  entry ;  has  no  good  basis.  A  pri- 
vate entry  before  the  public  one  conflicts  with  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  narrative. 

After  looking  about  the  temple,  ("round  about  upon 
all  things,"  Mark,)  as  if  He  would  observe  whether  all  was 
done  according  to  His  Father's  will,  He  goes  out,  and  re- 
turns to  Bethany.  Greswell  (iii.  100)  remarks :  "  It  is  prob- 
able that  the  traders,  with  their  droves  of  cattle  and  their 
other  effects,  had  already  removed  them  for  the  day." 
But,  if  so,  He  saw  by  plain  marks  that  His  Father's  house 
was  still  made  a  house  of  merchandise.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  He  spent  the  nights  during  Passion  week  in  this 
village,  and  probably  in  the  house  of  Lazarus.  Matthew 
says,  (xxi.  17:)  "  He  went  out  of  the  city,  into  Bethany, 
and  He  lodged  there."  Luke,  speaking  in  general  terms, 
says,  (xxi.  37  :)  "And  in  the  day-time  He  was  teaching  in 

1  Wieseler,  Lange,  Alexander,  Robinson,  Tischendorf,  Bucher,  Meyer, 
Ellicott. 

1  Ligbtfoot,  Towrnsend;  see  Greswell,  iii.  99.  »  Note  on  Matt.  xxi.  1. 

18 


410  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LORD. 

the  temple,  and  at  night  He  went  out  and  abode  (lodged) 
in  the  mount  that  is  called  of  Olives."  Probably  Bethany 
is  here  meant  as  a  district  embracing  a  part  of  the  mount, 
for  He  could  not  well,  at  this  season  of  the  year,  without  a 
tent,  lodge  in  the  open  air.  Alexander  supposes  that  Luke 
would  suggest,  that  "  a  part  of  these  nights  was  employed 
in  prayer  amidst  the  solitudes  of  Olivet."  Some  would  put 
the  request  of  the  Greeks  to  see  Jesus,  and  His  answer  to 
them,  (John  xii.  20-36,)  upon  this  day ;  but  it  may  better 
be  referred  to  Tuesday,  upon  grounds  to  be  there  given. 

Many  would  bring  this  visit  of  Jesus  to  the  temple  on 
the  10th  Nisan  into  connection  with  the  divine  command  to 
choose  this  day  a  lamb  for  the  paschal  sacrifice  and  supper, 
(Ex.  xii.  3-6,)  and  thus  find  in  it  a  mystical  significance. 
He  was  the  true  Paschal  Lamb,  and  was  now  set  apart  for 
the  sacrifice.1 


Monday,  3d  April,  11th  Nisan,  783.    a.  d.  30. 

Jesus,  leaving  Bethany  early  with  His  disciples,  was    Matt.  ixL  18,  19. 
hungry,  and  beholding  a  fig  tree  by  the  way  which  had    Mark  xi.  12-14. 
no  fruit,  He  pronounced  a  curse  against  it     Proceed- 
ing to  the  city,  He  enters  the  temple  and  purifies  it     Matt.  xxi.  12-*16. 
He  heals  there  the  blind  and  lame,  and  the  children    Mask  xi.  15-19. 
cry,  "  Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David."    His  reproofs    Lukx  xii.  45-48. 
enrage  the  priests  and  scribes,  who  seek  how  to  destroy 
Him.     In  the  evening  He  departs,  and  returns  to 
Bethany. 

Both  Matthew  and  Mark  relate  that  the  Lord  was  hun- 
gry as  He  returned  into  the  city ;  but  upon  what  ground 
He  had  abstained  from  food  that  morning,  does  not  appear. 
It  could  not  well  have  been  from  the  early  hour  of  His 
departure  from  Bethany,  but  was  probably  a  self-imposed 

»  Whitby,  Greswell,  Alford,  Wieseler. 


SECOND   PURIFICATION    OP   THE   TEMPLE.  411 

fast.  It  has  been  inferred  from  this  circumstance  that  He 
could  not  have  spent  the  night  with  His  friends.  It  may 
have  been  spent  in  solitude  and  prayer. 

Into  an  examination  of  the  supposed  moral  difficulties 
connected  with  the  cursing  of  the  fig  tree,  we  cannot  here 
enter.1  It  is  plain  that  this  miracle  is  narrated  because 
of  its  symbolic  teachings.  The  fig  tree  was  the  type  of 
the  Jewish  people,  (Luke  xiii.  6-9.)  They  had  the  law, 
the  temple,  all  rites  of  worship,  the  externals  of  righteous- 
ness ;  but  bore  none  of  its  true  fruits.  Christ  found  noth- 
ing but  leaves. 

Matthew  relates  the  withering  of  the  fig  tree  as  if  it 
took  place,  not  only  on  the  same  day  on  which  it  was  cursed, 
but  within  a  few  moments,  (vs.  19,  20.)  Mark,  on  the 
other  hand,  speaks  as  if  the  withering  was  not  seen  by  the 
disciples  till  the  next  da*y,  (xi.  20.)  Greswell,  who  sup- 
poses that  the  malediction  instantly  took  effect,  and  that 
the  tree  began  at  once  to  wither,  would  make  Matthew  and 
Mark  refer  to  two  distinct  conversations  between  the  Lord 
and  the  disciples ;  one  that  day,  and  the  other  upon  the 
next.  More  probably,  Matthew  brings  together  all  that  oc- 
curred upon  both  days,  in  order  to  complete  his  narrative.' 

That  this  purification  of  the  temple  is  distinct  from  that 
at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  (John  ii.  13-17,)  has  been 
already  shown.  That  the  latter  was  passed  over  by  the 
Synoptists,  is  explained  from  the  fact  that  they  begin  their 
account  of  Jesus'  ministry  with  His  departure  to  Galilee 
after  John  the  Baptist's  imprisonment.  That  John  should 
omit  the  former,  is  wholly  in  keeping  with  the  character  of 
his  Gospel.  The  first  cleansing  and  rebuke  had  wrought 
no  permanent  results,  and  the  old  abuses  were  restored  in 
full  vigor. 

After  cleansing  the  temple,  or  that  part  of  the  court  of 

»  See  Trench  on  Miracles,  p.  846. 

•  So  Alford,  Trench,  Krafft,  Wieseler. 


412  THE  LITE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

the  Gentiles  called  "  the  shops,"  where  every  day  was  sold 
wine,  salt,  oil,  as  also  oxen  and  sheep,1  He  permits  the  blind 
and  lame,  probably  those  who  asked  alms  at  the  gates,  to 
come  to  Him,  and  He  healed  them.  These  healings,  and 
the  expressions  of  wonder  and  gratitude  which  they  called 
forth,  joined  to  the  remembrance  of  the  acclamations 
that  had  greeted  Him  the  day  before,  led  the  children  in 
the  temple,  who  may  have  been  members  of  the  choir  of 
singers  employed  in  the  temple  service,  to  cry,  u  Hosanna 
to  the  Son  of  David,"  greatly  to  the  displeasure  of  the 
priests  and  scribes.  It  is  remarkable  that  children  only  are 
mentioned,  and  may  indicate  that  already  the  multitude, 
overawed  by  the  firm  and  hostile  bearing  of  His  enemies, 
had  begun  to  waver,  and  dared  no  more  openly  express 
their  good  will.     (See,  however,  Mark  xi.  18.) 

Some,  from  the  fact  that  the  children  are  here  mentioned 
as  crying  Hosanna,  and  that  in  the  temple,  make  it  to  have 
been  on  the  day  of  the  Lord's  entry.*  But  there  is  no  dif- 
ficulty in  believing  that  the  children  might  now  re-echo 
what  they  had  heard  a  few  hours  before." 


Tuesday,  4th  April,  12th  Nisan,  783.     a.  d.  30. 

Returning  into  the  city  m  the  morning  with  His  dis-  Mark  xi.  20-26. 

ciples,  they  saw  the  fig  tree  dried  up  from  the  roots,  and  Matt.  xxi.  20-22. 
this  leads  Jesus  to  speak  to  them  respecting  faith.     As 

He  entered  the  temple,  the  Pharisees  ask  Him  by  what  Matt.  xxi. 23-46. 

authority  He  acts.     He  replies  by  a  question  respecting  Mark  xi.  27-33. 

the  baptism  of  John,  and  adds  the  parables  of  the  two  Lukx  xx.  1-18. 

sons  and  of  the  wicked  husbandmen.     The  Pharisees  Mark  xii.  1-13. 

wish  to  arrest  Him,  but  are  afraid  of  the  people.     He  Matt.  xxii.  1-14. 

speaks  of  the  parable  of  the  king's  son.     The  Pharisees  Matt.  xxii.  15-46. 

and  Herodians  propose  to  Him  the  question  concern-  Mark  xii.  13-40 

1  See  Lightfoot  on  Matt  xxi.  12.  9  Alford,  Newcome,  Robinson. 

»  Kraffl,  Wieseler,  Lichtenstein,  Ellicott 


LAST  TEACHING  IN  THE  TEMPLE.  413 

ing  the  lawfulness  of  tribute  to  Caesar.    The  Sadducees    Luke  xx.  19-47. 

question  Him  respecting  the  resurrection  of  the  dead ; 

and  a  lawyer,  Which  is  the  chief  commandment  in  the 

law  ?    He  asks  the  Pharisees  a  question  respecting  the 

Messiah,  and  puts  them  to  silence,  and  addressing  the    Matt,  xxiii. 

disciples  and  people  denounces  their  hypocrisy. 

After  this  He  watches  the  people  casting  in  their    Mark  xii.  41-44. 
gifts,  and  praises  the  poor  widow  who  casts  in  two    Luke  xxi.  1-4. 
mites.    Some  Greeks  desiring  to  see  Him,  He  prophe-    John  xii.  20-36. 
siee  of  His  death.     A  voice  is  heard  from  heaven.     He 
speaks  a  few  words  to  the  people  and  leaves  the  tem- 
ple.   As  He  goes  out,  the  disciples  point  out  to  Him  the    Mark  xiii.  1-37. 
size  and  splendor  of  the  buildings,  to  whom  He  replies    Luke  xxi.  5-36. 
that  all  shall  be  thrown  down.     Ascending  the  Mount    Matt.  xxiv.  xxv. 
of  Olives  He  seats  Himself,  and  explains  to  Peter,  James, 
John,  and  Andrew,  the  course  of  events  till  His  re- 
turn.   He  adds,  that  after  two  days  was  the  Passover,     Matt.  xxvi.  1-5. 
when  He  should  be  betrayed.   He  goes  to  Bethany,  and    Mark  xiv,  1, 2. 
the  same  evening,  His  enemies  hold  a  council  and  agree    Mat. xxvi.  14-1 6. 
with  Judas  respecting  His  betrayal.  Mark  xiv.  10, 11. 

The  withering  of  the  fig  tree  seems  to  have  begun  as 
soon  as  the  Lord  had  spoken  the  curse  against  it.  Matthew 
says,  "  presently  the  fig  tree  withered  away."  Mark  says, 
"  it  was  dried  up  from  the  roots."  In  twenty-four  hours  it 
was  completely  dead.  That  the  disciples  did  not  at  even- 
ing, upon  their  return  to  Bethany,  see  that  it  had  withered, 
may  bo  owing  to  the  late  hour  of  their  return,  or  that  they 
did  not  pass  by  it. 

The  people  assembling  at  an  early  hour  in  the  temple, 
Jesus  goes  thither  immediately  upon  His  arrival  in  the 
city,  and  begins  to  teach.  Very  soon  the  chief  priests  and 
elders  of  the  people,  and  scribes,  came  to  Him,  demanding 
by  what  authority  He  acted.  It  seems  a  question  formally 
put  to  Him,  and  probably  by  a  deputation  from  the  Sanhe- 
drim,1 It  differs  essentially  from  the  question  put  to  Him 
after  the  first  purification,  (John  ii.  18,)  "  What  sign  shew- 

1  So  Alexander,  Meyer. 


414  THE  LIFE   OP   OUELORD. 

est  thou  unto  us,  seeing  thou  doest  these  things  ?  "  Now  it 
is,  "  By  what  authority  doest  thou  these  things  ?  And  who 
gave  thee  this  authority  ? "  Then,  they  desired  that  He 
should  work  miracles  as  signs  or  proofs  of  His  divine  mis- 
sion. But  His  miracles  had  not  been  sufficient  to  convince 
them.  Now,  he  must  give  other  vouchers.  He  must  show 
himself  to  be  authorized  by  those  who,  sitting  in  Moses' 
seat,  were  alone  able  to  confer  authority.  But  they  had 
not  authorized  Him,  and  He  was  therefore  acting  in  an 
arbitrary  and  illegal  manner.  To  this  question  He  replies 
by  another  respecting  the  baptism  of  John.  The  Baptist 
had  borne  his  testimony  to  Him  when,  three  years  before, 
they  had  sent  a  deputation  to  him,  (John  i.  26.)  If  John 
was  a  prophet,  and  divinely  commissioned,  why  had  they 
not  received  his  testimony?  This  was  a  dilemma  they 
could  not  escape.  They  could  not  condemn  themselves ; 
they  dare  not  offend  the  people ;  they  must  remain  silent. 

Although  thus  repulsed,  yet,  His  enemies  continuing  in 
the  temple,  He  begins  to  speak  to  them  in  parables,  (Mark 
xii.  1  ;)  "  the  second  beginning,"  says  Stier,  "  as  before  in 
Galilee,  so  now  in  Jerusalem."  It  is  to  be  noted  that  now, 
for  the  first  time,  the  Lord  utters  plainly  the  truth  in  the 
hearing  of  the  Pharisees,  that  they  shall  kill  Him,  and 
that  in  consequence  the  kingdom  shall  be  taken  from  them.1 
The  point  of  these  parables  was  not  missed  by  the  Pharisees, 
but  they  dare  not  arrest  Him. 

The  parable  of  the  marriage  of  the  king's  son  is  related 
by  Matthew  only,  for  that  in  Luke  (xiv.  16-24)  was  spoken 
much  earlier.'  It  set  forth  more  distinctly  than  the  para- 
bles preceding,  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  those  bidden  of 
old  ;  the  bidding  of  others  in  their  place  ;  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  their  city. 

1  See  Matt  viii.  11, 12.    These  words  seem  to  have  been  spoken  to  th« 
disciples. 

a  Meyer,  Alford,  Robinson,  Teschendorf,  Lichtensteiu,  Trench. 


THE   PHARISEES   AND   SADDUCEES   TEMPT   HIM.  415 

Stung  by  these  parables,  so  full  of  sharp  rebuke,  the 
Pharisees  now  consult  together  how  "  they  may  entangle 
Him  in  His  talk."  Never  were  their  craft  and  inveterate 
hostility  more  strikingly  shown,  than  in  these  attempts  to 
draw  something  from  His  own  mouth  which  might  serve  as 
the  basis  of  accusation  against  Him.  The  first  question 
would  have  been  full  of  peril  to  one  less  wise  than  Himself, 
for  it  appealed  to  the  most  lively  political  susceptibilities  of 
the  people.  No  zealous  Jew  could  admit  that  tribute  was 
rightly  due  to  Caesar,  and  much  less  could  one  who  claimed 
to  be  the  Messiah  admit  this ;  for  it  was  to  confess  that  He 
was  the  vassal  of  the  Romans,  a  confession  utterly  incom- 
patible with  Messianic  claims.  Yet  if  He  denied  this,  the 
Herodians  were  at  hand  to  accuse  him  of  treason,  an  accu- 
sation which  the  Romans  were  always  quick  to  hear.  But 
He  avoided  the  artfully  contrived  snare  by  referring  the 
question  to  their  own  discernment.  God  had  chosen  them 
for  His  people,  and  He  alone  should  be  their  king,  and 
therefore  it  was  not  right  for  them  to  be  under  heathen 
domination.  Yet,  because  of  their  sins,  God  had  given 
them  into  the  hands  of  their  enemies,  and  they  were  now 
under  Roman  rule.  This  fact  they  must  recognize,  and  in 
view  of  this  they  must  fulfil  all  duties,  those  to  Caesar  as 
well  as  those  to  God. 

The  question  of  the  Sadducees  was  in  keeping  with  the 
sceptical,  scoffing  character  of  that  sect.  Apparently,  it  was 
not  so  much  designed  to  awake  popular  hatred  against  Him 
a*  to  cast  ridicule  upon  Him,  and  also  upon  their  rivals, 
the  Pharisees,  by  showing  the  absurd  consequences  of  one  of 
their  most  cherished  dogmas,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
Perhaps,  also,  they  were  curious  to  see  how  He  would  meet 
an  argument  to  which  their  rivals  had  been  able  to  give  no 
satisfactory  answer.1 

The  question  of  the  lawyer  seems  to  have  been  without 

»  See  Meyer  in  loco. 


416  THE   LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

any  malicious  motive  on  his  part.1  It  referred  to  a  disputed 
point  among  the  schools  of  the  Rabbis,  and  which  he,  ad- 
miring the  wisdom  of  Jesus,  wished  to  hear  solved.  Some, 
however,  suppose  (see  Matt.  xxii.  34)  that  the  lawyer  was 
sent  by  the  Pharisees,  who  had  gathered  together  to  de- 
vise a  new  attack.*  But  these  two  views  are  not  really  incon- 
sistent. The  lawyer,  a  man  of  ability  and  reputation,  and 
on  these  grounds  chosen  to  be  their  representative  and 
spokesman,  may  have  had  a  sincere  respect  for  that  wis- 
dom that  had  marked  Christ's  previous  answers.  He  pro- 
poses this  question  respecting  the  comparative  value  of  the 
commandments,  rather  to  test  His  knowledge  in  the  law 
than  to  array  the  people  against  him.  Had  the  answer 
been  erroneous,  doubtless  advantage  would  have  been  taken 
of  it  to  His  injury,  although  it  is  not  obvious  to  us  in 
what  way ;  but  it  so  commended  itself  to  the  intelligence  of 
the  lawyer,  that  he  honestly  and  frankly  expresses  his  ap- 
probation.    (See  Mark  xii.  32-34.) 

All  his  adversaries  being  silenced,  the  Lord  proceeds  in 
His  turn  to  ask  a  question  that  should  test  their  own  know- 
ledge, and  inquires  how  the  Messiah  could  be  the  Son  of 
David,  and  yet  David  call  Him  Lord  ?  Their  inability  to 
answer  Him  shows  us  how  little  the  truth  that  the  Messiah 
should  be  a  divine  being,  the  Son  of  God,  as  well  as  Son  of 
man,  was  yet  apprehended  by  them  ;  and  how  all  Christ's 
efforts  to  reveal  His  true  nature  had  foiled,  through  their 
wickedness  and  unbelief. 

It  is  questioned  whether  the  Lord's  words  to  the 
scribes  (Mark  xii.  38-40 ;  Luke  xx.  45-47)  are  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  those  recorded  by  Matthew,  xxiii.  Gres- 
well  (iii.  121)  gives  ten  reasons  for  distinguishing  between 
them,  which,  however,  have  no  great  weight.  Most  re- 
gard them  as  identical.'      Wieseler   (395)   supposes  Mat- 

»  Greswell,  Alford.  *  Meyer,  Ebrard. 

»  Ebrard,  Meyer,  Alford,  Robinson,  Krafft 


STEKN    REBUKES   OP   THE   PHARISEES.  417 

thew  to  have  included  the  address  to  the  Pharisees,  record* 
ed  by  Luke  xi.  39-52.  The  attempts  of  the  Pharisees  to 
entrap  Him,  their  malice  and  wickedness  veiled  under  the 
show  of  righteousness,  awaken  the  Lord's  deepest  indigna- 
tion, and  explain  the  terrible  severity  of  His  language. 
They  had  proved  that  "  they  were  the  children  of  them 
which  killed  the  prophets;"  and  as  the  old  messengers 
of  God  had  been  rejected  and  slain,  so  should  they  reject 
and  slay  those  whom  He  was  about  to  send.  Thus  should 
all  the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  the  earth  come  upon 
them. 

It  is  not  certain  who  was  the  "  Zacharias  son  of  Bara- 
chias," to  whom  the  Lord  refers  as  slain  between  the 
temple  and  the  altar.  Many  identify  him  with  the  Zech- 
ariah  son  of  Jehoiada,  who  was  "  stoned  with  stones,  at  the 
commandment  of  the  king  in  the  court  of  the  house  of  the 
Lord,"  (2  Chron.  xxiv.  20,  21.)  In  this  case,  Barachias  may 
have  been  another  name  of  Jehoiada,  as  the  Jews  had  often 
two  names ;  or  Barachias  may  have  been  the  father,  and 
Jehoiada  the  grandfather;  or,  as  it  is  omitted  by  Luke 
xi.  51,  some,  as  Meyer,  infer  that  it  was  not  mentioned  by 
Christ,  but  was  added  from  tradition,  and  erroneously 
given,  perhaps  confounding  him  with  the  Zechariah  son  of 
Berechiah,  (Zech.  i.  1.)  But  if  this  Zacharias  was  meant, 
why  is  he  called  the  last  of  the  martyrs,  since  there  were 
others  later?  The  explanation  given  by  Lightfoot  is  at 
least  probable,  that  it  was  the  last  example  in  the  Old  Tea. 
tament  as  the  canon  was  then  arranged,  and  therefore  the 
Lord  cites  the  first,  that  of  Abel,  and  this  as  the  last.  Both 
have  also  another  circumstance  in  common ;  a  call  of  the 
murdered  for  vengeance.  "  The  requiring  of  vengeance  is 
mentioned  only  concerning  Abel  and  Zacharias.  *  Behold 
the  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood  crieth  unto  me,'  (Gen. 
iv.  10.)  'Let  the  Lord  look  upon  it  and  require  it,'" 
18* 


418  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LOED. 

(2  Chron.  xxiv.  22.1)  Others  make  this  Zechariah  to  be  pro- 
phetically spoken  of,  and  identify  him  with  the  Zecharias 
son  of  Baruch  mentioned  by  Josephus,*  who  was  slain  by 
the  Zealots  in  the  midst  of  the  temple,  and  the  body  cast 
into  the  valley  of  the  Kidron.  But  the  Lord  does  not 
speak  of  blood  to  be  yet  shed,  but  of  that  which  had  been 
shed  ;  and  as  the  death  of  Abel  was  a  well-known  historical 
event,  so  also  was  that  of  Zacharias.  Others  refer  to  a 
tradition  that  Zacharias,  father  of  John  the  Baptist,  was 
murdered  by  the  Jews.* 

Many  make  this  discourse  to  the  Pharisees  to  have  been 
spoken  just  before  He  left  the  temple,  and  His  last  words 
there.  "  It  is  morally  certain,"  says  Greswell,  "  that  our 
Lord  immediately  left  the  temple,  and  never  returned  to 
it  again."  But  most  follow  the  order  of  Mark,  (xii.  41-44,) 
who  places  the  visit  of  Jesus  to  the  treasury  after  this 
discourse.*  Seating  Himself  by  the  treasury,  or  treasure 
chests  in  the  court  of  the  women,  in  which  offerings  were 
placed,  He  watches  those  who  come  to  bring  their  gifts. 

The  visit  of  the  Greeks  to  Him  is  mentioned  only  by 
John,  (xii.  20-36.)  Some  place  it  upon  the  evening  of  the 
triumphal  entry.*  But  the  Lord's  language  fits  better  to 
the  final  departure  from  the  temple  than  to  the  time  of 
the  entry.  Beside,  if  He  was  now  in  the  court  of  the  wo- 
men, it  explains  the  request  of  the  Greeks  to  see  Him ;  for 
if  He  had  been  in  the  outer  court,  all  could  have  seen  Him ; 
but  into  the  inner  court  they  could  not  come.  Upon  these, 
and  other  grounds,  it  is  placed  here  by  many.6    It  is  not 

»  So  Meyer,  Alford,  Lange ;  see  Winer,  ii.  711.  »  War,  4.  5.  4. 

•  Thilo,  Codex  Apoc.  i.  267  ;  Hofmann,  Leben  Jesu,  134 ;  Jonas  on  the 
Canon  of  the  N.  Test,  ii.  134.  According  to  the  latter,  this  tradition  was 
very  generally  credited  in  early  times,  as  by  Tertullian,  Origen,  Epiphanius. 
See  also  Baronius,  who  defends  it. 

•  Krafft,  Friedlieb,  Robinson,  Wieseler,  Ellicott,  Tischendort 

•  Greswell,  Krafft,  Ebrard,  Townsend,  Stier. 

6  Robinson,  Lichtensteiu,  Teschendorf,  Wieseler,  Ellicott. 


THE   VOICE   FROM    HEAVEN.  419 

certain  whether  these  Greeks  did  actually  meet  the  Lord. 
His  words  (vs.  23-27)  were  not  addressed  directly  to  them, 
but  they  may  have  been  within  hearing.  Their  coming  is 
a  sign  that  His  end  is  nigh,  and  that  the  great  work  for 
which  He  came  into  the  world,  is  about  to  be  fulfilled. 
Sticr  sets  this  visit  of  the  Greeks  from  the  west,  in  contrast 
to  the  visit  of  the  Magi  from  the  east ;  the  one  at  the  end, 
the  other  at  the  beginning  of  His  life. 

In  reply  to  the  Lord's  prayer — "  Glorify  Thy  name,"  (v. 
28) — there  "  came  a  voice  from  heaven,  I  have  both  glori- 
fied it,  and  will  glorify  it  again."  These  words,  according 
to  most  interpreters,  were  spoken  in  an  audible  voice.  It 
is  said  by  Alford,  "  This  voice  can  no  otherwise  be  under* 
stood  than  as  a  plain  articulate  sound,  miraculously  spoken, 
heard  by  all,  and  variously  interpreted."  This  would  imply 
that  all  present  heard  the  words  plainly  articulated.  But 
this  is  not  said.  They  heard  a  voice ;  yet  some  said,  "  It 
thundered ; "  and  others,  "  An  angel  spake  to  Him  ; "  which 
could  not  have  been  the  case  if  the  words  had  been  dis- 
tinctly spoken. 

Probably,  the  capacity  to  understand  the  voice  was 
dependent  upon  each  man's  spiritual  condition  and  recep- 
tivity. To  Jesus,  and,  perhaps,  to  the  apostles  and  disciples, 
it  was  an  articulate  voice ;  to  others  it  was  indistinct,  yet 
they  recognized  it  as  a  voice,  perhaps  of  an  angel ;  to 
others  still,  it  was  mere  sound,  as  if  it  thundered.1  Town- 
send  would  make  it  an  answer  to  the  Greeks  who  desired 
to  see  Jesus,  or,  at  least,  spoken  in  their  hearing.  We  find, 
however,  its  true  significance  if  we  compare  it  with  those 
other  testimonies  of  the  Father  to  Him  at  His  baptism  and 
at  His  transfiguration.     (Matt.  iii.  17  ;  xvii.  5.) 

After  Jesus  had  finished  His  words  in  the  temple,  He 
"  departed,  and  did  hide  Himself  from  them,"  (v.  36.)  His 
departing  and  hiding  are  not  to  be  understood  of  a  night's 

1  See  Luthardt  in  loco. 


420  THE  LIFE  OP   OUB  LOBD. 

sojourn  in  Bethany,  but  of  His  final  departure  from  the 
temple,  and  His  sojourn  in  retirement  till  His  arrest.  His 
public  work  was  over.  He  appears  no  more  in  His  Father's 
house  as  a  preacher  of  righteousness.  Henceforth  all  His 
words  of  wisdom  are  addressed  to  His  own  disciples.  The 
statements  (vs.  37-43)  are  those  of  the  Evangelist.  But 
when  were  the  Lord's  words  (vs.  44-50)  spoken  ?  Most 
regard  them  as  a  citation  by  the  Evangelist  from  earlier 
discourses,  and  introduced  here  as  confirming  his  own 
remarks.1 

The  allusion  of  the  disciples  to  the  size  and  splendor  of 
the  temple  buildings,  seems  to  have  been  occasioned  by 
His  words  to  the  Pharisees  foretelling  its  desolation,  (Matt, 
xxiii.  38.)  That  so  substantial  and  massive  a  structure  could 
become  desolate,  was  incredible  to  them,  for  they  had  as 
yet  no  distinct  conception  that  God  was  about  to  cast  off 
His  own  covenant  people,  and  bring  the  worship  He  had 
appointed  to  an  end.  This  manifestation  of  incredulity  led 
Him  to  say,  with  great  emphasis,  that  the  buildings  should 
be  utterly  destroyed,  not  one  stone  being  left  upon  another. 
This  was  literally  fulfilled  in  the  destruction  of  the  temple, 
though  some  of  the  walls  enclosing  it  were  not  wholly  cast 
down.  It  was  a  prediction  that,  made  public,  would  have 
greatly  angered  the  Jews,  and  hence  the  apostles  came  to 
Him  "  privately  "  to  learn  its  meaning. 

It  was  probably  at  the  close  of  the  day,  perhaps  in  the 
twilight,  that  He  sat  down  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  over 
against  the  temple.  The  city  lay  in  full  view  before  Him, 
Mark  (xiii.  3)  speaks  of  only  four  of  the  apostles,  Peter 
and  James,  and  John  and  Andrew,  who  asked  Him  pri- 
vately when  these  things  should  be.  Matthew  (xxiv.  8)  states 
that  "  the  disciples  came  unto  Him  privately ; "  Luke  (xxi. 
1)  that  "  they  asked  Him."    There  can  be  little  doubt  that 

*  Lichtenstein,  Meyer,  Alford,  Tholuck,  Teschendorf.  Luthardt  and  Wiese- 
ler  make  them  to  have  been  spoken  to  the  disciples. 


CONSULTATION    OF   THE   PRIESTS   AND   ELDERS.  421 

Mark  gives  the  more  accurate  account,  and  that  these  four 
only  were  present.1  The  remainder  of  the  Twelve  may  have 
preceded  Him  on  the  way  to  Bethany.  Alexander  supposes 
that  all  were  present,  and  that  u  the  four  are  only  mentioned 
as  particularly  earnest  in  making  this  inquiry,  although 
speaking  with  and  for  the  rest." 

If  His  words  were  spoken  to  these  four  only,  it  implies 
that  the  predictions  He  uttered  could  not  at  that  time  be 
fittingly  spoken  to  the  body  of  the  apostles. 

The  announcement  to  the  disciples  (Matt.  xxvi.  1,  2) 
that  "  after  two  days  was  the  Passover,  when  the  Son  of 
man  should  be  betrayed  to  be  crucified,"  was  probably 
made  soon  after  His  discourse  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
and  so  upon  the  evening  of  Tuesday.  Perhaps,  He  wished 
distinctly  to  remind  them  that  His  coming  in  glory  must 
be  preceded  by  His  death  and  resurrection.  Whether  it 
was  made  to  all  the  disciples  or  to  the  four,  is  not  certain, 
but  probably  to  alL  Alford  thinks  that  "  it  gives  no  cer- 
tainty as  to  the  time  when  the  words  were  said  :  we  do  not 
know  whether  the  current  day  was  included  or  otherwise." 
I£  however,  Thursday  was  the  14th  Nisan,  or  the  PassoVer, 
according  to  the  rule  already  adopted,  excluding  one  of  the 
extremes  and  including  the  other,  the  announcement  was 
made  on  Tuesday.'  The  meeting  of  the  chief  priests  and 
the  scribes  and  elders  at  the  palace  of  Caiaphas  for  consult- 
ation, was  upon  the  same  evening.  This  may  be  inferred, 
at  least,  from  Matthew's  words,  (xxvi.  3,)  "  Then  assem- 
bled together,"  <fcc.,  the  assembly  being  on  the  same  day 
when  the  words  were  spoken,  (v.  2.)*  From  the  fact  that 
the  council  met  at  the  palace  of  Caiaphas,  and  also  that 
its  session  was  in  the  evening,  we  may  infer  that  it  was  an 

»  Lichtenstein,  Alford,  Lange,  GreswelL 

•  Meyer,  Lichtenstein,  De  Wette. 

*  Meyer;  Ellicott  places  it  on  Wednesday. 


422  THE   LIFE   OF   OUK   LORD. 

extraordinary  meeting,  held  for  secret  consultation.1  It 
may  readily  be  supposed  that  the  severe  language  of  the 
Lord  had  greatly  enraged  His  enemies,  and  that  they  felt 
the  necessity  of  taking  immediate  steps  against  Him.  But 
they  dared  not  arrest  him  during  the  feast,  because  of  the 
people,  and  determined  to  postpone  it  till  flie  feast  was 
past.  Thus,  it  may  be,  at  the  same  hour  when  Jesus  was 
foretelling  that  He  shall  suffer  at  the  Passover,  His  enemies 
were  resolving  that  they  would  not  arrest  Him  during  the 
feast."  But  the  divine  prediction  was  accomplished  in  a 
way  they  had  not  anticipated.  Judas,  one  of  the  Twelve, 
coming  to  them,  offers,  for  money,  to  betray  Him  into  their 
hands.  They  at  once  make  a  covenant  with  him,  and  he 
watches  for  an  opportunity.  Still  it  does  not  appear  that 
he  designed  to  betray  Him  during  the  feast ;  and  his  action 
on  the  evening  following  the  Paschal  supper  was,  as  we 
shall  see,  forced  upon  him  by  the  Lord.  Whether  Judas 
presented  himself  to  the  council  at  their  session,  is  not  said ; 
but  it  is  not  improbable  that,  hearing  the  Lord's  rebukes  of 
their  hypocrisy,  and  seeing  how  great  was  their  exasperation 
against  Him,  he  had  watched  their  movements,  and  learned 
of  their  assembly  at  the  high  priest's  palace.  This  gave  him 
the  wished-for  opportunity  to  enter  into  an  agreement  with 
them.  Some,  as  Ellicott,  put  this  visit  of  Judas  to  the 
priests  and  elders  on  Wednesday. 

1  Tradition  makes  the  bargain  with  Judas  to  have  been  entered  into  at 
the  country  house  of  Caiaphas,  the  ruins  of  which  are  still  shown  upon  the 
summit  of  the  Hill  of  Evil  Counsel.  The  tradition  is  not  ancient ;  but  it  is 
mentioned,  as  a  singular  fact,  that  the  monument  of  Annas,  who  may  have 
had  a  country-seat  near  his  son-in-law,  is  found  in  this  neighborhood.  Wil- 
liams, H.  C.  ii.  496. 

8  Some  understand  that  they  proposed  to  arrest  TTim  before  the  feast.  So 
Neander,  Ewald ;  see,  contra,  Meyer  in  loco. 


PKTEB  AND  JOHN   PREPARE  THE  PASSOVER.  423 

Wednesday,  5th  April,  13th  Nisan,  783.     a.  d.  30. 

During  this  day  the  Lord  remained  in  seclusion  at  Bethany. 

The  Lord  left  the  temple  for  the  last  time  on  Tuesday 
afternoon.  His  public  labors  were  ended.  There  remained, 
however,  a  few  hours  before  the  Passover.  How  was  this 
period  spent  ?  We  can  well  believe  that  some  part  of  it 
was  spent  alone,  that  He  might  enjoy  that  free  communion 
with  God  which  He  had  so  earnestly  sought  in  the  midst  of 
His  active  labors,  and  which  was  now  doubly  dear  to  Him 
in  view  of  His  speedy  death.  Some  part  of  it,  also,  was 
doubtless  devoted  to  His  disciples,  giving  them  such  coun- 
sel and  encouragement  as  was  demanded  by  the  very  pecu- 
liar and  trying  circumstances  in  which  they  were  placed. 
That  Wednesday  was  spent  in  retirement,  is  generally  ad- 
mitted.1 

Thursday,  6th  April,  14th  Nisan,  783.    a.  d.  30. 

From  Bethany  He  sends  Peter  and  John  into  the  Matt.  xxvi.  17-19. 

city  to  prepare  the  Passover.     He  describes  a  man  Mark  xiv.  12-16. 

whom  they  should  meet,  and  who  should  show  them  Luke  xxii.  7-13. 
a  room  furnished,  where  they  should  make  ready  for 

the  supper.     He  remains  at  Bethany  till  toward  even-  Matt.  xxvi.  20. 

ing,  when  He  enters  the  city,  and  goes  to  the  room  Mark  xiv.  17. 

where  the  supper  was  to  be  eaten.  Luke  xxii.  14. 

At  this  feast  the  Jews  divided  themselves  into  com- 
panies, or  households,  of  not  less  than  ten  nor  more  than 
twenty  persons ;  and  these  together  consumed  the  paschal 
lamb.9    One  of  the  number,  acting  as  the  representative  of 

1  Wieseler,  Robinson,  Ellicott. 

'  Exod.  xii.  8,  4 ;  Josephus,  War,  6.  9.  8. 


424  THE   LIFE   OP    OUR  LOED. 

all,  presented  the  lamb  in  the  court  of  the  temple,  and 
aided  the  Levites  in  its  sacrifice.  The  victim  was  then  car- 
ried away  by  the  offerer  to  the  house  where  it  was  to  be 
eaten,  and  there  wholly  consumed.  On  this  occasion  Peter 
and  John  acted  as  the  representatives  of  the  Lord  and  of  His 
apostles  at  the  temple,  and  provided  the  bread,  wine,  bit- 
ter herbs,  and  all  that  was  necessary  for  the  proper  cele- 
bration of  the  feast.  It  appears  that,  up  to  this  time,  the 
disciples  did  not  know  where  the  Lord  would  eat  the  Pass- 
over, and,  as  the  hour 'drew  nigh,  inquired  of  Him,  (Matt, 
xxvi.  17.)  According  to  Mark  and  Luke,  the  two  apostles 
were  to  go  to  the  city,  and  a  man  should  meet  them  bearing 
a  pitcher  of  water,  whom  they  should  follow  into  whatsoever 
house  he  entered.  There  they  should  find  a  guest-chamber, 
furnished  and  prepared,  which  the  master  of  the  house 
should  place  at  their  disposal.  Matthew  says  nothing  of 
their  meeting  the  man  with  the  pitcher,  but  makes  the  two 
to  have  gone  directly  to  the  house.  Meyer  supposes  that 
Matthew  follows  the  early  tradition,  which  represents  the 
master  of  the  house  as  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  who  had,  earlier 
in  the  week,  arranged  with  Him  for  the  use  of  the  guest- 
chamber  ;  and  that  Mark  and  Luke  follow  a  later  tradition, 
which  represents  the  Lord  as  ignorant  of  the  man,  but  giv- 
ing directions  to  the  two  through  prophetio  foresight. 
There  is  no  need  of  thus  supposing  two  traditions.  Mat- 
thew passes  over  in  silence  the  incident  of  the  man  with  the 
pitcher,  upon  what  grounds  we  cannot  state,  (Alford  sup- 
poses, perhaps  from  ignorance  ;)  but  this  silence  is  no  way 
inconsistent  with  the  statements  of  the  other  Evangelists. 
From  Mark  and  Luke  it  is  apparent  that  no  agreement  had 
been  made  by  the  Lord  for  the  room ;  else  He  would  not 
have  given  such  directions  to  the  two  apostles,  but  have 
sent  them  directly  to  the  house.'  Whether  the  master  of 
the  house  were  an  entire  stranger  to  Jesus,  or  a  concealed 

>  Alford,  Alexander. 


DID  JESUS  EAT  THE  TBUE  PASCHAL  SUPPER  ?    425 

disciple,  like  Joseph  or  Nicodemus,  or  an  open  follower,  is 
not  certain.1  The  Lord's  message  to  him,  "  My  time  is  at 
hand.  I  will  keep  the  Passover  at  thy  house,  with  my  dis- 
ciples," seems,  however,  to  presuppose  some  previous  ac- 
quaintance ;  as  also  the  phrase,  "  the  Master  saitb."  This, 
however,  is  not  necessary,  if,  as  said  by  Alexander,  "  the 
whole  proceeding  be  regarded  as  extraordinary,  and  the 
result  secured  by  a  special  superhuman  influence." 

It  is  at  this  point  that  we  meet  the  difficult  questions 
connected  with  the  last  Passover.  For  the  sake  of  brevity 
and  clearness,  we  shall  pursue  the  following  order  in  our 
inquiries :  I.  State  the  real  or  supposed  discrepancies  be- 
tween the  statements  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  of  John  on  the  other.  II.  Give  an  outline 
of  the  various  attempts  to  harmonize  them.  III.  State  the 
results. 

I.  We  consider  the  real  or  supposed  discrepancies  be- 
tween the  Synoptists  and  John.  The  day  on  which  the 
Lord  sent  Peter  and  John  to  prepare  the  Passover  was, 
according  to  Matthew,  (xxvi.  17,)  "the  first  day  of  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread."  Mark  and  Luke  use  similar 
language.  From  these  statements,  it  appears  that  Jesus 
partook  of  the  paschal  supper  at  the  same  time  with  the 
Jews  in  general,  and  at  the  time  appointed  in  the  law, 
which  was  upon  the  evening  following  the  14th  Nisan. 
Upon  the  next  day,  Friday,  the  15th,  He  was  crucified. 

If  we  now  turn  to  John,  we  find  that  he  speaks  as  if  the 
paschal  supper  was  legally  upon  the  evening  of  Friday ; 
and  that,  consequently,  the  Lord,  who  ate  it  upon  the 
evening  of  Thursday,  ate  it  before  the  time.  Referring 
(xviii.  28)  to  the  unwillingness  of  the  Jews  to  enter  the 
judgment  hall  on  the  day  of  the  crucifixion,  he  says :  "  They 
themselves  went  not  into  the  judgment  hall,  lest  they  should 

1  See  Bynaeua,  i.  480,  who  gives  an  account  of  early  opinions. 


426  THE  LITE   OF   OUE  LORD. 

be  defiled,  but  that  they  might  eat  the  Passover."  From 
this  it  follows  that,  if  the  Passover  was  yet  to  be  eaten, 
and  upon  the  day  of  His  crucifixion,  the  supper  eaten  by 
Jesus  and  His  disciples  the  evening  previous,  was  not  the 
legal  paschal  supper.  Friday,  as  the  day  when  the  lamb 
was  slain,  was  the  14th  Nisan,  and  Thursday  was  the  13th. 
So,  also,  John  (xix.  14)  calls  the  day  on  which  He  was  cru- 
cified, not  the  Passover  itself,  but  "  the  preparation  of  the 
Passover,"  from  which  it  follows  that  the  Passover  was 
yet  to  come. 

It  is  admitted  on  all  sides,  upon  grounds  to  be  hereafter 
stated,  that  Jesus  died  on  Friday,  in  the  afternoon.1  The 
eating  of  the  supper,  on  the  evening  previous,  was,  there- 
fore, on  Thursday  evening ;  nis  resurrection  was  on  the 
Sunday  following.  The  point  in  question  is  respecting  the 
day  of  the  month:  Was  Friday  the  14th  or  15th  Nisan? 
It  is  said  that  John  asserts  the  former,  the  Synoptists  the 
latter.    We  give  the  discrepancy  in  tabular  form  : 

St.  John.  Synoptists. 

Supper  eaten,  evening  of  Thursday,  Evening  of  Thursday,  14th 

13th  Nisan.  Nisan. 

Jesus  crucified,  Friday,  14th  Nisan.  Friday,  15th  Nisan. 

Was  in  the  grave,  Saturday,  15th  Nisan.  Saturday,  16th  "    ' 

Resurrection,  Sunday,  16th  Nisan.  Sunday,  17th      " 

This  difference  as  to  the  time  of  the  paschal  supper 
eaten  by  the  Lord,  was  early  noted  by  Christian  writers.' 
Modern  criticism  has  brought  it  very  prominently  forward, 
and  attached  to  it  great  importance,  and  it  demands,  there- 
fore, our  careful  attention. 

II.  The  attempts  to  harmonize  the  Synoptists  and  John. 

1st.  That  the  Jews  kept  the  Passover  on  two  distinct 
days,  both  of  which  were  legal.     It  is  said  by  some  that 

*  See,  however,  Westcott,  320.  «  Wichelhaus,  187. 


DAY   OP  THE  PASSOVER,    HOW   DETERMINED.  427 

there  were  two  ways  of  determining  the  first  day  of  the 
month,  and  consequently  the  day  of  the  feast,  by  astronom- 
ical calculation  and  by  ocular  observation  ;  and  thus  the 
paschal  lamb  might  be  slain  on  the  14th  Nisan  of  real,  or 
the  14th  of  apparent  time.  One  of  these  modes  was  followed 
by  the  Sadducees,  and  the  other  by  the  Pharisees,  and  thus 
the  discrepancy  between  the  Synoptists  and  John  is  ex- 
plained. Jesus,  with  the  Sadducees,  kept  the  true  day; 
the  Pharisees  and  most  of  the  Jews  the  apparent  day.  If, 
however,  such  a  difference  in  the  mode  of  computation  did 
actually  exist  between  the  Rabbinites  and  Karaites  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  there  is  no  proof  that  it  did  before.1 
The  only  way  of  determining  the  beginning  of  the  month 
practised  by  the  Jews  before  the  capture  of  the  city  by 
Titus,  a.  d.  70,  was  the  appearance  of  the  new  moon.  Thus 
there  could  not  have  been,  during  the  Lord's  ministry,  two 
legal  days  for  the  observance  of  the  Passover ;  and  the 
supposition  that  He,  with  one  part  of  the  Jews,  rightly 
observed  Thursday,  as  astronomically  correct,  and  that 
another  part  rightly  observed  Friday,  as  determined  by 
the  appearance  of  the  new  moon,  is  without  any  founda- 
tion. 

A  modification  of  this  view  has  lately  been  presented  by 
Serno.1  He  supposes,  that,  as  the  moon  in  some  sections 
of  the  country  might  be  seen  at  its  first  appearance,  and  in 
others  be  hidden  by  the  clouds,  and  thus  a  difference  in 
computation  arise,  the  first  day  of  the  feast  was  doubled, 
and  the  paschal  supper  was  lawfully  eaten  on  either.  But 
of  this  there  is  no  proof.  When  the  authorities  at  Jerusa- 
lem had  determined  the  first  of  the  month,  all  succeeding 
days  were  reckoned  from  it ;  and  if  a  Jew  from  any  distant 
part  of  the  land  had  mistaken  the  day  of  the  month  through 
ignorance  of  the  appearing  of  the  moon,  he  must  make  the 

»  Winer,  ii.  150 ;  Paulus,  iii.  486.  •  Berlin,  1859. 


428  THE  LITE  OF   OUR  LORD. 

feast  days  to  conform  to  those  fixed  upon  by  the  Sanhedrim. 
Even  if  the  latter  had  erred,  their  decision  was  final.  There 
is  not  the  least  evidence  that  the  Passover  could  be,  or 
ever  was,  observed  upon  two  successive  days. 

It  has  been  said  by  Cudworth,1  that,  the  Jews  having 
erred  in  the  day,  placing  it  too  late,  the  Lord  corrected 
the  error,  and  directed  the  supper  to  be  prepared  at  the 
legal  time,  on  Thursday  evening.  He,  also,  affirms  that  it 
was  "  a  custom  among  the  Jews,  in  such  doubtful  cases  as 
these,  which  oftentimes  fell  out,  to  permit  the  feasts  to  be 
solemnized,  or  passovers  killed,  on  two  several  days  to- 
gether." He  quotes  Scaliger  to  the  same  effect.  But  all 
this  is  without  any  historic  basis.  The  language  of  Mark, 
(xiv.  1 2,)  "  And  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread,  when 
they  killed  the  passover,"  &c,  plainly  implies  that  He 
ate  the  paschal  supper  on  the  same  day  as  the  Jews  in 
general.* 

It  has  been  said,  also,  that,  according  to  the  law,  the 
Passover  should  be  killed  on  the  evening  following  the 
13th,  or  at  the  beginning  of  the  14th  Nisan.  Jesus,  in  com- 
mon with  a  few  of  the  Jews,  kept  the  law ;  but  most  of 
them  killed  it  on  the  afternoon,  or  at  the  close  of  the  14th, 
twenty-four  hours  later  than  the  legal  time.  This  rests 
upon  an  untenable  construction  of  the  law. 

"We  find,  then,  no  good  grounds  for  believing  that  the 
Jews  recognized  two  distinct  days  as  equally  legal  for  the 
paschal  solemnities ;  or  that,  through  error  of  computa- 
tion, they  observed  the  wrong  day,  and  the  Lord  the  right 
one. 

2d.  That  the  Lord  kept  the  Passover  on  Thursday,  at 
the  appointed  time,  but  that  the  Jews  purposely  delayed  it. 
The  ground  of  this  delay  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  when 
the  15th  Nisan,  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  and  so  a  sabbath, 

»  True  Notion  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  ii.  528.  ■  Wichelhaus,  205. 


THE  LEGAL  DAY  OBSERVED  BY  THE  JEWS.     429 

(Lev.  xxiii.  7,  8,)  fell  upon  Friday,  and  thus  two  sabbaths, 
the  feast  sabbath  and  week  Sabbath,  would  immediately 
follow  each  other,  the  Jews  united  them  in  one,  and  the 
sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb  on  the  14th  was  postponed  to 
the  15th.  Thus  the  Lord,  according  to  the  law,  ate  the 
paschal  supper  on  Thursday  evening,  but  the  Jews  on 
Friday  evening.1  But  this  explanation  has  no  sufficient 
basis,  as  there  is  no  room  for  doubt  that  such  changes  of 
the  feasts,  and  the  rule  forbidding  that  the  Passover  should 
fall  on  Friday,  were  posterior  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, probably  about  400  a.  d.* 

Another  ground  of  delay  was  given  early  by  Eusebius 
and  others,  that  the  Jews  were^  so  busy  with  their  accusa- 
tions against  Christ,  that  they  postponed  the  feast  till  His 
trial  and  crucifixion  should  be  over.  This  is  so  intrinsically 
improbable  that  it  now  finds  no  defenders.  A  modification 
of  this  is  still  supported  by  some :  that  those  most  active 
against  Ilim,  and  who  are  specially  alluded  to  (John  xviii. 
28)  as  not  willing  to  enter  the  judgment  hall,  did  delay 
their  paschal  supper  on  this  account.'  This  view  will  be 
hereafter  noticed. 

We  do  not  thus  find  any  proof  that  the  Jews  delayed 
the  Passover  after  the  legal  time. 

3d.  That  the  Lord  anticipated  the  day  and  ate,  not  the 
true  paschal  supper,  but  one  of  a  sacramental  character, 
and  corresponding  to  it.  That  He  anticipated  the  day,  was 
very  early  affirmed  by  some  of  the  fathers,  supposing,  that 
as  the  true  Paschal  Lamb,  the  Antitype,  He  must  have 
suffered  at  the  hour  when  the  typical  lamb  was  slain,  and  so 
upon  the   14th  Nisan.    The  supper  He  observed  must, 

1  So  Calvin,  on  Matt,  xxri.  17,  who  remarks  that  the  Jews  affirm  that  this 
was  done  by  them  after  their  return  from  Babylon,  and  by  God's  express  di- 
rection. 

»  Wichelhaus,  203 ;   Paulas,  iii.  487,  note ;  Cudworth,  ii.  524. 

»  Fairbairu,  lier.  Mam.,  862. 


430  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

therefore,  have  been  on  the  evening  following,  the  13th. 
This  point  had  in  the  first  days  of  the  church  a  special  im- 
portance, because  of  the  controversy  with  some  of  the 
Christian  Jews  in  regard  to  the  binding  force  of  the  Mosaic 
laws.  It  was  asserted  by  them,  that  as  Jesus  kept  the  legal 
Passover,  the  paschal  sacrifice  and  supper,  these  were  still 
binding,  and  to  be  kept  in  the  Church.  In  reply,  it  was 
asserted  by  many  of  the  Christians  that  He  did  notr  eat  the 
paschal  supper,  but,  as  the  true  Paschal  Lamb,  was  slain  at 
the  hour  appointed  for  the  sacrifice  of  the  Passover.  In  the 
Greek  Church  this  became  by  degrees  the  ruling  opinion, 
and  is  generally  defended  by  her  writers.1  In  the  Latin 
Church,  on  the  other hand^it  was  generally  denied;  but  in 
neither  is  it  made  an  article  of  faith.  The  question  as  to 
the  use  of  leavened  or  unleavened  bread  in  the  Eucharist, 
may  have  had  some  influence  upon  the  matter ;  the  Greeks, 
using  the  former,  were  led  to  say  that  the  Lord  used  it  at 
the  institution  of  the  rite,  and  that,  therefore,  it  was  not  the 
true  paschal  supper,  at  which  only  unleavened  bread  was 
used.  The  Latins,  using  unleavened  bread,  maintained  that 
the  Eucharist  was  instituted  at  the  true  paschal  supper. 

This  view,  that  the  Lord  anticipated  the  paschal  supper, 
has,  besides  its  antiquity,  much  in  its  favor,  and  is  now 
supported  by  many.'  But  the  objections  against  it  are 
very  strong.  First,  the  language  of  the  Synoptiets  leaves 
little  room  to  question  that  the  Lord  kept  the  Passover  at 
the  same  time  with  the  Jews  in  general.  "  The  first  day 
of  unleavened  bread,  when  they  killed  the  Passover ; "  "  the 
day  of  unleavened  bread,  when  the  Passover  must  be  kill- 
ed. "  Second.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  Lord,  who 
said  that  He  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil  the  law, 
should  have  set  it  aside.     If  He  observed  the  Passover  at 

1  Wichelhaus,  190. 

»  So  Krafft,  129 ;   Greswell,  iii.  138 ;  Hlicott,  822 ;  J.  Muller,  in  Herzog's 
Real.  Encyc,  i.  22 ;  Clinton,  ii.  240 ;  The  author  of  "  The  Messiah." 


THE   PASSOVER   NOT   ANTICIPATED.  431 

all,  He  would  observe  it  at  the  legal  time.  In  this,  most 
Protestant  writers  agree  with  the  Latins.1  Third.  Such  a 
sacrifice  would  not  have  been  permitted  by  the  priests. 
They  would  not  have  aided  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  lamb 
upon  a  day  which  they  did  not  recognize  as  the  legal  one. 
To  avoid  this  difficulty,  Greswell  quotes  Philo,  (iii.  146,)  to 
show  that  each  man  was  then  his  own  priest,  and  could 
slay  the  lamb,  if  he  pleased,  in  his  own  dwelling.  But  the 
weight  of  authority  is  against  him.  The  lamb  must  be 
slain  in  the  temple,  and  the  blood  be  sprinkled  on  the 
altar. 

By  some,  however,  it  is  said  that  the  supper  of  Thurs- 
day evening  was  not  the  true  paschal  supper,  but  such  an 
one  as  the  Jews,  who  could  not  be  present  at  the  feast, 
observed  at  their  own  homes,  when  all  the  forms  of  the 
Passover  were  kept,  except  the  eating  of  the  lamb.'  But 
such  a  supper  could  only  be  eaten  out  of  Jerusalem,  and 
upon  the  legal  day,  not  in  the  city,  and  upon  the  day 
previous.  Nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  this  Memorial 
Passover  was  ever  observed  till  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  when  it  became  impossible  that  the  lamb  could 
be  slain  in  the  temple,  and  the  supper  was  necessarily 
limited  to  unleavened  bread  and  bitter  herbs. 

We  do  not  then  find  sufficient  grounds  to  believe  that 
the  Lord  anticipated  the  Passover. 

Some  peculiar  solutions,  that  have  found  no  general  re- 
ception, need  only  be  mentioned.  Such  is  that  of  Rauch,' 
that  the  paschal  lamb  was  legally  slain,  not  on  the  14th, 
but  on  the  15th  Nisan.  And  of  Schneekenburger,*  that 
Jesus  was  crucified  on  Wednesday,  and  was  four  days  in 
the  grave. 

If  none  of  these  solutions  satisfies  us,  we  are  compelled 
either  to  admit  that  the  statements  of  the  Synoptists  are 

»  Wichelhaus,  202.  '  So  Orotius  on  Matt,  xxri  11. 

»  Bib.  Repertory,  Jan.,  1884.  «  Wieaeler,  838. 


432  THE   LIFE  OP   OUB  LORD. 

irreconcilable  with  those  of  John,  or  to  deny,  what  we 
have  hitherto  assumed,  that  a  discrepancy  really  exists- 

Let  us  therefore  examine  the  point  as  to  the  existence 
of  any  discrepancy  between  the  Synoptists  and  John.  And 
before  considering  the  statements  of  the  several  Evangelists, 
it  will  be  well  to  keep  before  us  the  origin  and  design  of 
the  Passover,  and  the  peculiarities  of  its  observance. 

1st.  Its  origin  and  design.  It  was  instituted  in  com- 
memoration of  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt  from 
the  destroying  angel,  when  all  the  first-born  of  the  Egyp- 
tians were  slain,  (Exod.  xii.  14,  <fcc.)  This  remarkable  deliv- 
erance was  ever  afterward  to  be  commemorated  by  a 
feast.  This  was  introduced  by  the  paschal  supper.  The 
people  being  divided  into  households  or  families,  of  not  less 
than  ten  or  more  than  twenty,  a  lamb  was  slain  for  each 
family,  and  eaten  immediately  after  with  unleavened  bread 
and  bitter  herbs.  Now  followed  a  feast  of  seven  days*  con- 
tinuance, during  which  only  unleavened  bread  was  eaten. 
There  is  no  reason  for  attributing  to  this  feast  any  earlier 
origin  than  the  historical  deliverance  it  commemorated/ 

2d.  The  manner  of  its  celebration.  The  lamb  or  goat 
was  to  be  selected  on  the  10th  Nisan,  a  male  without  blem- 
ish. On  the  14th,  "between  the  evenings,"  it  must  be 
slain,  (Exod.  xii.  6  ;  Lev.  xxiii.  5  ;  Num.  ix.  3.)  The  expres- 
sion "  between  the  evenings,"  was  generally  understood  by 
the  Jews  of  the  period  from  the  decline  of  the  sun  to  its 
setting,  or  from  3  to  6  p.  m.  This  was,  without  doubt, 
the  ruling  mode  of  computation.1  The  Karaites  and  Samar- 
itans, however,  referred  it  to  the  period  between  sundown 
and  dark,  or  from  6  to  7  p.  m.s  Wieseler  refers  it  to  a 
period  a  little  before  and  a  little  after  the  going  down  of 
the  sun,  say  from  5  to  7  p.  m.,  citing  Deut.  xvi  6  in  proo£ 


i  See  Bahr,  Symbolik,  ii.  640;  Ewald,  Alterthurmer,  391. 

■  Josephus,  War,  6.  9.  3 ;  Antiq.,  14.  4.  3.  •  Winer,  ii.  198. 


THANK   OFFERINGS   OF   THE  PASSOVER,  433 

Ewald  makes  it  to  include  three  hours  before  and  three 
hours  after  the  sun  set. 

The  paschal  lamb  was  originally  slain  by  the  head  of 
each  family,  (Exod.  xiL  6  ;)  but  this  seems  later  to  have  been 
done  by  the  Levites,  and  always  in  the  court  of  the  temple 
where  stood  the  brazen  altar,  (Ezra  vi.  20;  Deut.  xvi. 
2-6.)  After  the  sacrifice  came  the  supper.  This  was  upon 
the  evening  following  the  14th  Nisan,  or,  as  the  Jews  began 
the  day  at  sundown,  upon  the  beginning  of  the  15th.  The 
lamb  was  to  be  wholly  consumed  before  morning,  either  by 
eating  or  by  fire. 

Besides  the  paschal  lamb,  other  offerings  were  made, 
which  were  eaten  at  the  paschal  supper  and  upon  the  fol- 
lowing day.  These  are  mentioned  (Deut.  xvi.  2)  "  as  the 
Passover  of  the  flock  and  herd,"  and  embraced  the  sacrifices 
of  sheep  or  bullocks  voluntarily  added,  and  called  by  the 
Jews,  chagigah,  or  feast-offering.  Concerning  these,  Mai- 
monides  (quoted  by  Ains  worth  in  loco)  says :  "  When  they 
offer  the  Passover  in  the  first  month,  they  offer  it  with 
peace-offerings  on  the  14th  day,  of  the  flock  and  of  the  herd, 
and  this  is  called  the  chagigah,  or  feast  offering,  of  the  14th 
day.  And  of  this  it  is  said,  (Deut.  xvi  2,)  that  thou  shalt 
sacrifice  the  Passover  to  the  Lord  thy  God  of  the  flock  and 
the  herd." 

To  understand  the  relation  of  the  chagigah  to  the  Pass- 
over in  general,  we  must  remember  that  this  feast  was  the 
commemoration  of  a  great  national  deliverance,  and,,  as 
such,  to  be  kept  with  thanksgiving  and  joy.  The  paschal 
supper,  strictly  speaking,  seems  to  have  had  much  less  of 
the  joyous  element  in  it  than  the  rest  of  the  feast.  As  said 
by  Lightfoot,  "  the  eating  of  the  lamb  was  the  very  least 
part  of  the  joy  ;  a  thing  rubbing  up  the  remembrance  of 
affliction,  rather  than  denoting  gladness  and  making  mer- 
ry." The  lamb,  which  constituted  the  chief  part  of  the 
supper,  reminded  them  of  that  fearful  night  when  all  the 
19 


434  THE  LIFE  OF   OUE  L0ED. 

first-born  of  Egypt  died;  the  bitter  herbs  with  which 
it  was  eaten,  reminded  them  of  the  bitterness  of  their 
Egyptian  bondage ;  and  all  the  attendant  circumstances 
would  tend  to  beget  seriousness  and  reflection.  The  fes- 
tival character  of  the  season  appeared  much  more  plainly 
upon  the  succeedmg  day,  when  the  peace  offerings  volun- 
tarily presented  to  God  in  token  of  thankfulness,  were 
eaten,  (Exod.  xxiii.  15.)  That  these  peace  offerings  were 
sometimes  offered  on  the  14th  Nisan,  and  eaten  at  the 
paschal  supper,  appears  from  Maimonides ;  but,  according 
to  Lightfoot,  (on  John  xviii.  28,)  only  when  the  lamb  was 
not  sufficient  for  the  company.  The  usual  time  for  the 
chagigah  was  on  the  15th,  and  with  these  offerings  the  re- 
joicing was  more  directly  connected. 

We  thus  see  that  no  sharp  line  of  distinction  can  be 
taken  between  the  paschal  supper  and  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread.  The  former  served  as  the  introduction  to 
the  latter,  but  had  peculiar  to  itself  the  eating  of  the  lamb 
and  of  the  bitter  herbs.  Still  it  was  but  the  beginning  of 
the  feast,  for  none  but  unleavened  bread  was  used  during 
its  continuance,  (Exod.  xii.  18.) 

The  ceremonies  of  the  second  day  of  the  feast,  the  16th 
Nisan,  were  peculiar,  and  important  to  be  noted.  Upon 
this  day  the  first  fruits  of  the  barley  harvest  were  brought 
to  the  temple,  and  waved  by  a  priest  before  the  Lord,  to 
consecrate  the  harvest ;  and  not  till  this  was  done  might 
any  one  begin  his  reaping,  (Lev.  xxiii.  10-1 2.)1 

The  removal  of  the  leaven  from  their  houses,  the  prep- 
arations for  the  paschal  supper,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the 
lamb,  taking  place  on  the  14th  Nisan,  this  day  was  popu- 
larly called  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  thus  extending  it  to 
eight  days.'    The  Evangelists  follow  this  popular  usage, 

1  Josephus,  Antiq.,  3.  10.  5.    As  to  the  connection  of  this  rite  with  the 
Passover,  see  Winer,  ii.  201 ;  Bahr,  ii.  638. 
*  Josephus,  Antiq.,  2. 15. 1. 


OBSERVANCE  op  the  feast  sabbath.  435 

(Matt.  xxvi.  17  ;  Mark  xiv.  12 ;  Luke  xxii.  7.)  Upon  each 
of  the  seven  days  of  the  feast  was  offered  a  sacrifice  for  the 
whole  people,  (Num.  xxviii.  19-24.)  The  first  and  last 
days  of  the  feast,  or  the  15th  and  21st,  were  holy  days,  or 
sabbaths,  (Lev.  xxiii.  7,  8.)  But  these  feast  sabbaths  do 
not  seem  ever  to  have  been  regarded  as  equal  in  sacredness 
to  the  week  Sabbaths.  And  it  is  important  that  the  dis- 
tinction between  them  should  be  clearly  seen,  as  it  has 
an  important  bearing  upon  several  points  to  be  hereafter 
discussed. 

Besides  the  weekly  Sabbath,  there  were  seven  days  of 
the  year  that  had  a  sabbatical  character:  the  first  and 
seventh  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread ;  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost ;  the  first  and  the  tenth  of  the  seventh  month  ;  and 
the  first  and  eighth  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles.  Of  these, 
one,  the  tenth  of  the  seventh  month,  the  day  oi  atone- 
ment, was  put  on  the  same  footing  as  the  weekly  Sabbath 
in  respect  to  labor.  No  work  at  all  could  be  done  upon 
it ;  but  on  the  other  six  feast  sabbaths  they  could  do  no  ser- 
vile work,  (Lev.  xxiii.  3-39.)  These  were  called  by  the 
Talmudists  u  good  days."  It  is  not  wholly  clear  what  kind 
of  work  was  not  servile,  but  the  preparation  of  food  was 
expressly  permitted,  (Exod.  xii.  16.)  Maimonides  (quoted  by 
Ainsworth)  says :  "  All  work  needful  about  meat  is  lawful, 
as  killing  of  beasts,  and  baking  of  bread,  and  kneading  of 
dough,  and  the  like.  But  such  work  as  may  be  done  in 
the  evening  of  a  feast  day  they  do  not  on  a  feast  day,  as 
they  may  not  reap,  nor  thrash,  nor  winnow,  nor  grind  the 
corn,  or  the  like.  Bathing  and  anointing  are  contained 
under  the  general  head  of  meat  and  drink,  and  may  be 
done  on  the  feast  day."  The  penalty  for  doing  servile 
work  on  these  days  was,  according  to  Maimonides,  to  be 
beaten  ;  but  the  penalty  for  working  on  the  Sabbath  wag 
death,  (Num.  xv.  32-35.) 

To  these  feast  sabbaths  we  find  few  allusions  in  Jewish 


436  THE  LIFE   OP   OUE  LOED. 

history.  They  are  not  mentioned  at  all  in  the  Gospels. 
All  the  violations  of  the  Sabbath  with  which  the  Lord  was 
charged  were  those  of  the  weekly  Sabbath.  Nor  is  there 
any  distinct  allusion  to  them  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  in 
Josephus.  Before  the  weekly  Sabbath  was  a  time  of  prep- 
aration, because  no  labor  of  any  kind  could  then  be  done, 
but  it  is  not  probable  that  there  was  such  a  period  of  prep- 
aration before  the  feast  sabbaths,  as  then  all  labor  but  ser- 
vile labor  was  permitted.  This  point,  however,  will  be 
hereafter  more  particularly  examined. 

A  special  mark  of  distinction  was  shown  to  the  weekly 
Sabbath  in  the  doubling  the  usual  offerings,  (Num.  xxviii. 
9,)  and  the  renewal  of  the  show  bread,  (Lev.  xxiv.  8.) 

Thus  we  find  in  the  paschal  festival  three  distinct  so- 
lemnities :  1st.  The  killing  of  the  paschal  lamb  on  the  after- 
noon of  the  14th  Nisan,  and  the  eating  of  it  the  evening  fol- 
lowing. 2d.  The  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  beginning  with 
the  paschal  supper,  and  continuing  to  the  close  of  the  21st 
day  of  Nisan.  3d.  The  offering  of  the  first  fruits  of  the 
barley  harvest  on  the  16th  Nisan,  or  second  day  of  the 
feast.  To  the  latter  no  distinct  allusion  is  made  by  the 
Evangelists. 

With  these  preliminary  observations  upon  the  origin 
and  observance  of  the  Passover,  we  pass  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  terms  applied  to  it,  first  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  then  in  the  New.  The  Hebrew  pesach,  or  Aramaic 
pascah,  refers  primarily  to  the  paschal  lamb.  "  Draw  out 
and  take  you  a  lamb,  and  kill  the  Passover,"  (Exod.  xii.  21.) 
To  kill  the  Passover,  and  to  eat  the  Passover,  is  to  kill  and 
eat  the  paschal  lamb,  (see  Exod.  xii.  11 ;  Num.  ix.  2-6; 
2  Chron.  xxx.  15.)  But,  as  has  been  said,  often  with  the 
flesh  of  the  lamb  the  flesh  of  other  sacrifices  offered  as 
peace  offerings  was  eaten ;  and  hence,  naturally,  the  term  was 
made  to  embrace  these  also;  and  then  the  whole  seven  days 
of  the  feast.     "  Thou  shalt  sacrifice  the  Passover  to  the 


THE  TERM  PASSOVEK  IN  OLD  TESTAMENT.      437 

Lord  thy  God  of  the  flock  and  the  herd ;  thou  shaft  eat  no 
kavened  bread  with  it;  seven  days  shaft  thou  eat  un- 
leavened bread  therewith,"  (Deut.  xvi.  2,  3.)  That  the 
Passover  is  here  used  as  a  general  term,  embracing  the 
sacrifices  of  both  flock  and  herd,  is  generally  admitted.1 
"  They  did  eat  the  feast  seven  days  offering  peace  offer- 
ings," (2  Chron.  xxx.  22.)  In  the  days  of  Josiah  he  and  his 
princes  gave  small  cattle  and  oxen  for  passovers — pesachim, 
(2  Chron.  xxxv.  7-9;  see  also  xxx.  17,  where  the  same 
word  seems  to  be  limited  to  paschal  lambs.)  Thus  made 
to  include  all  the  special  sacrifies  of  the  feast,  it  became  a 
designation  of  the  feast  in  general.  "  To  keep  the  Pass- 
over," was  to  observe  all  the  solemnities  of  the  feast  with- 
out distinction  of  specific  acts,  unless  through  the  force  of 
the  context  the  meaning  must  be  limited  to  the  paschal 
supper.  It  is  thus  used  Deut.  xvi.  1 ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  21 ; 
2  Chron.  xxx.  1  ;  2  Chron.  xxxv.  1 ;  Ezek.  xlv.  21. 

From  this  examination  of  the  terms  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, we  find  that  there  is  no  exact  discrimination  in  their 
use.  Sometimes  the  Passover  and  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  are  expressly  distinguished,  and  the  former  limited 
to  the  paschal  supper,  (Lev.  xxiii.  5,  6 ;  Num.  xxviil  16, 
1 7.)  At  other  times  they  are  used  interchangeably.  The 
precise  meaning  in  each  case  must  be  determined  by  the 
connection  in  which  it  stands. 

We  proceed  to  consider  the  usage  of  these  terms  in  the 
New  Testament.  And  first  their  usage  by  the  Synoptists. 
Here  also  the  term  Passover,  to  irao-xa,  is  used  in  its  nar- 
rowest sense,  of  the  paschal  lamb.  Thus  in  Mark  xiv.  12, 
"  when  they  killed  the  Passover ; "  in  Luke  xxii.  7,  "  when 
the  Passover  must  be  killed."  It  is  used  in  the  large  sense, 
including  both  the  sacrifice  of  the  lamb  and  the  supper, 
Matt  xxvi.  17 ;  Mark  xiv.  14;  Luke  xxii.  11.     It  is  used 

>  So  Bleek,  Beitrige,  111.    See  other  constructions  in  Cudworth,  ii.  522. 


438  THE  LITE   OF    OUR   LORD. 

as  a  designation  of  the  feast  in  its  whole  extent,  Matt.  xxvi. 
2 ;  Luke  xxii.  1.  (See  also  Mark  xiv.  1.)  That  the  phrase, 
"  feast  of  unleavened  bread,"  ra  a&fxa,  embraced  the  pas- 
chal supper,  appears  from  Matt.  xxvi.  17;  Mark  xiv.  12; 
Luke  xxii.  7. 

Turning  from  the  Synoptists  to  John,  it  is  at  once  ap- 
parent that  he  generally  uses  the  term  Passover,  to  Trao-xa, 
in  its  largest  sense,  as  embracing  the  whole  feast.  So  ii.  13 
and  23  ;  vi.  4 ;  xi.  55  ;  xii.  1 ;  xiii.  1.  So  in  the  references 
to  it  as  the  feast,  eoon?,  iv.  45 ;  xl  56;  xii.  12  and  20;  xiii. 
29.  In  xviii.  28  and  39,  and  in  xix.  14,  its  meaning  is  in 
dispute. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  enter  upon  a  more  particular 
examination  of  the  statements  of  the  Evangelists;  and 
first,  those  of  the  Synoptists.  Their  language  is  very  ex- 
press :  "  Now  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread 
— tq  8c  irpwrrj  tu)v  a^vfuov — the  disciples  came  to  Jesus,  say- 
ing, Where  wilt  Thou  that  we  prepare  for  Thee  to  eat  the 
Passover?"  (Matt.  xxvi.  17.)  "And  the  first  day  of  un- 
leavened bread — Kat  rrj  irpwry  rjfifpa  twv  a^vfMov — when  they 
killed  the  Passover,  His  disciples  said  unto  Him,"  &c, 
(Mark  xiv.  12.)  "Then  came  the  day  of  unleavened  bread, 
when  the  Passover  must  be  killed," — 1\  ^/xepa  iw  a£vfjuav, 
(Luke  xxiL  7.)  That  this  was  the  14th  Nisan  seems  beyond 
reasonable  doubt,  for  on  the  afternoon  of  this  day  the 
paschal  lamb  was  slain,  and  all  preparations  made  for  the 
feast  that  began  at  evening  with  the  paschal  supper.  As  has 
been  already  remarked,  this  was  not,  strictly  speaking,  the 
first  day  of  the  feast,  for  this  began  with  the  15th,  but  was, 
in  popular  language,  so  called ;  and  the  circumstance  that 
the  lamb  was  yet  to  be  slain,  sufficiently  determines  what 
day  was  meant.    (Compare  Exod.  xii.  18.) 

The  attempts  so  to  interpret  these  statements  as  to 
make  them  refer  to  a  supper  on  the  13th  Nisan,  are  very 
forced  and  unsatisfactory.     Kraflt  (129)  bases  his  interpre- 


THE   FIRST   DAY    OF   THE  FEAST.  439 

tation  upon  the  Jewish  mode  of  beginning  the  day  at  sun- 
set. The  13th  Nisan  was  from  the  eve  of  Wednesday  to 
the  eve  of  Thursday;  the  14th,  from  the  eve  of  Thursday 
to  the  eve  of  Friday.  The  Synoptists  thus  count  the  14th, 
beginning  at  sunset  of  Thursday,  as  the  first  of  the  feast. 
Upon  Thursday,  the  13th,  the  Lord  gave  directions  that 
the  Passover  should  be  prepared,  and  the  lamb  was  killed 
the  same  afternoon,  and  eaten  during  the  evening  follow- 
ing, or  at  the  beginning  of  the  14th.  Greswell  (Hi.  171) 
presents  the  same  view:  "From  sunset  on  Thursday  to 
sunset  on  Friday  was  considered,  and  might  be  called,  the 
first  day  of  unleavened  bread.  We  have  but  to  suppose 
that  the  disciples  came  with  their  inquiry  at  sunset  on 
Thursday,  and  were  sent  at  that  time  accordingly,  and  the 
assertion  would  be  strictly  correct." '  The  great,  and  as  it 
seems,  insuperable  objection  to  this,  is,  that  the  Lord  must 
then  have  killed  and  eaten  the  Passover  twenty-four  hours 
earlier  than  the  Jews  in  general.  Krafft  (130)  admits 
this  of  most  of  the  Jews,  but  supposes,  from  the  language 
of  the  Synoptists,  and  from  the  multitude  of  sacrifices  to  be 
offered,  that  some  of  them  must  have  eaten  the  supper  on 
the  13th,  at  the  same  time  with  the  Lord.  But  there  is  no 
proof  that  it  was  ever  eaten  by  any  portion  of  the  people, 
except  on  the  evening  following  the  14th.  The  arguments 
that  the  Lord  did  so,  drawn  from  the  language  of  the 
Synoptists,  are  by  no  means  conclusive.  From  the  message 
sent  by  him  to  the  master  of  the  house,  (Matt.  xxvi.  18,) 
"My  time  is  at  hand,  I  will  keep  the  Passover  at  thy 
house,"  it  has  been  inferred,  that  "  the  Passover  about  to 
be  celebrated  was  something  out  of  course,"  or  before  the 
usual  period.*  But  this  is  not  a  necessary  inference.  "  My 
time  is  not  *  the  time  of  the  feast,'  but  my  time,  i.  e.  for 
suffering."  *    This  interpretation  is  much  the  most  obvious 

»  See  also  Journal  Sac.  Lit.,  Oct.  1861.  *  Groewell,  lii.  144. 

»  Alford  iu  loco. 


440  THE  LIFE   OP  OUR  LORD. 

and  natural.  Some,  as  Ellicott,  have  inferred  from  His 
words  at  the  beginning  of  the  Bupper,  (Luke  xxii.  15,) 
"  With  desire  I  have  desired  to  eat  this  Passover  with  you 
before  I  suffer,"  that  He  designs  to  designate  the  Pass- 
over as  a  peculiar  one.  But  its  peculiarity  did  not  neces- 
sarily consist  in  its  being  celebrated  earlier  than  was  usual, 
but  in  the  fact  that  it  was  the  last. 

None  of  the  advocates  of  this  view  meet  in  any  satisfac- 
tory way  the  statement  of  Luke,  "  Then  came  the  day  of 
unleavened  bread,  when  the  Passover  must  be  killed ; " 
and  of  Mark,  "  And  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread  when 
they  killed  the  Passover,  His  disciples  said,"  <fcc.  We  can- 
not, without  doing  great  violence  to  this  language,  make  it 
refer  to  the  13th  of  Nisan,  since  neither  according  to  the 
law  nor  to  usage,  was  the  paschal  lamb  slain  on  that  day. 
And  the  difficulty  is  increased  since,  according  to  the  law, 
(Deut.  xvi.  5,  6,)  the  lamb  could  not  be  sacrificed  anywhere 
else  than  in  the  temple.1  It  is  incredible  that  the  priests 
would  have  permitted  the  time  to  have  been  anticipa- 
ted by  a  day  in  this  single  instance.  The  supposition  of 
Ellicott,'  that  the  time  specified  for  killing  the  lamb,  viz., 
"  between  the  evenings,"  may  be  understood  to  mean  be- 
tween the  eves  of  Nisan  14th  and  Nisan  15th,  is  wholly 
without  proof.'  The  whole  tenor  of  the  synoptical  narra- 
tives makes  irresistibly  upon  us  the  impression,  that  the 
disciples  prepared,  and  the  Lord  ate,  the  Passover,  at  the 
same  time  when  it  was  prepared  and  eaten  by  the  people  at 
large.  The  truth  is  well  expressed  by  Robinson  : 4  "  Their 
language  is  full,  explicit,  and  decisive,  to  the  effect  that  our 
Lord's  last  meal  with  His  disciples  was  the  regular  and 
ordinary  paschal  supper  of  the  Jews,  introducing  the  festi- 
val of  unleavened  bread  on  the  evening  after  the  14th 
day  of  Nisan." 

1  See  Ainsworth  in  loco  ;   Friedlieb,  Arch.  47.  •  822,  note  8. 

*  See  Godwyn,  Moses  and  Aaron,   108;   De  Wette,   Arcbaologie,  224; 
Ewald  Alterthurmer,  397.  *  Har.,  214. 


THE   SUPPEE   MENTIONED   BY   .TOIIN.  441 

Taking,  then,  as  established,  that  the  Synoptists  make 
the  supper  eaten  by  the  Lord  to  have  been  the  true  paschal 
supper,  let  us  consider  in  detail  the  statements  of  John 
that  bear  upon  the  point.  The  first  of  these  we  find  in  xiii. 
1  :  "  Now  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  when  Jesus 
knew  that  His  hour  was  come,"  <fcc.  The  chronological 
value  of  this  passage  depends  upon  the  relation  in  which 
the  clause,  "  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,"  stands  to 
the  supper  subsequently  mentioned,  at  which  the  Lord 
washed  the  feet  of  the  disciples.  But  before  we  can  exam- 
ine this  point,  we  must  consider  the  opinion  of  those  who 
make  this  a  supper  previous  to  the  paschal  supper,  and 
one  not  mentioned  at  all  by  the  Synoptists. 

The  chief  arguments  urged  by  those  who  would  make 
the  supper  of  John  distinct  from  the  paschal  supper  of  the 
Synoptists,  are,  1st,  that  it  is  not  described  by  him  as  a 
paschal  meal ;  2d,  that  it  is  said  to  have  been  "  before  the 
feast  of  the  Passover ;  "  3d,  that  the  interpretation  of  the 
Lord's  words  to  Judas,  (v.  29,)  by  the  disciples,  shows  that 
the  Passover  was  still  future ;  4th,  that  the  language  of 
Jesus  at  this  supper,  (xiv.  31,)  "Arise,  let  us  go  hence," 
refers  to  His  departure  to  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  feast  upon 
the  following  day ;  5th,  that  the  act  of  washing  the  feet 
was  incongruous  with  the  paschal  supper;  6th,  that  the 
statement,  (John  xiii.  27,)  that  Satan,  after  the  sop,  en- 
tered into  Judas,  is  identical  with  Luke's  statement,  (xxii. 
3,)  and  must  therefore  have  been  previous  to  the  paschal 
supper.1  But  those,  who,  upon  the  above  grounds,  deny 
the  supper  of  John  to  be  the  paschal  meal,  are  by  no  means 
agreed  when  it  took  place.  Some  put  it  upon  Wednesday 
evening."  Lightfoot  puts  it  on  Tuesday  evening,  identify- 
ing it  with  that  supper  at  Bethany  when  the  Lord  was 

»  See  Bengel  in  loco;  Krafft,  125;  Jarvis,  442 ;  Wichelhans,  154. 
•  So  Bengel,  Krafft,  Wicbelhaus.    See  Bynaeus,  De  Morte  Jesu  Christi,  i. 
886,  for  an  elaborate  defence  of  thia  view. 
19* 


442  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LOED. 

anointed,  (Matt.  xxvi.  6,)  which  he  distinguishes  from  that 
in  John  xii.  .2. 

Upon  the  other  hand,  it  is  said  that  this  supper  was  the 
paschal  supper,  and  so  to  be  identified  with  that  of  the 
Synoptists,  upon  the  following  grounds  :  1st.  Through  the 
designation  of  Judas  by  the  Lord  as  he  that  should  betray 
Him.  (Compare  John  xiii.  21-30  wfth  Matt.  xxvi.  21-25, 
Mark  xiv.  18-21,  Luke  xxii.  21-23.)  2d.  Through  the 
prophecy  that  Peter  should  thrice  deny  Him,  and  of  the 
crowing  of  the  cock.  (Compare  John  xiii.  38  with  Matt, 
xxvi.  34,  Luke  xxii.  34.)  3d.  Through  the  connection  be- 
tween the  Lord's  words  recorded  in  John,  chaps,  xiv.  xv. 
xvi,  showing  that  they  were  all  spoken  at  once.  4th. 
Through  the  statement,  (Luke  xxii.  24,)  that  at  the  paschal 
supper  there  was  a  strife  among  them,  who  should  be  ac- 
counted greatest,  and  which  serves  to  explain  His  conduct 
in  washing  His  disciples'  feet.    (Compare  John  xiii.  13-1 V). 

Upon  these  grounds  most  of  the  modern  commentators 
have  arrayed  themselves  in  favor  of  the  identification  of 
this  supper  in  John  with  the  supper  of  the  Synoptists.1  A 
careful  examination  of  the  arguments  justifies  this  conclu- 
sion. That  the  supper  is  not  expressly  named  as  the 
paschal  supper,  does  not  show  that  it  was  a  common  meal. 
Rather  it  is  supposed  to  be  something  well  known  and 
familiar  to  the  reader ;  the  supper  by  way  of  eminence. 

Returning  now  to  the  interpretation  of  John  xiii.  1-4, 
we  ask  to  what  does  the  introductory  chronological  notice, 
"before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,"  refer?  Our  answer 
must  depend  upon  the  relation  in  which  v.  1  stands  to  the 
verses  following.  That  it  forms  a  sentence  complete  in  it- 
self, and  grammatically  independent  upon  what  follows,  is 
generally  admitted.'     If  so,  the  words,  "  before  the  feast  of 

1  Tholuck,  Greswell,  Alford,  Meyer,  Teschendorf,  Robinson,  Friedlieb,  and 
others. 

*  Meyer,  Lange,  Robinson,  Alford,  Tischendorf. 


THE  SUPPER  OF  JOHN  THE  PASCHAL  SUPPER.   443 

the  Passover,"  would  seem  to  qualify  either  the  participle 
«i&i*,  or  aya7r»7<ras.  If  the  former,  the  meaning  would  be, 
that  Jesus,  knowing  before  the  feast  that  His  hour  was 
come,  and,  having  loved  His  own,  continued  to  love  them 
to  the  end ;  and  at  the  feast,  i.  e.  the  paschal  supper  now 
present,  gives  them  a  new  proof  of  His  love.  This  inter- 
pretation is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  whole  narrative. 
Before  Jesus  left  Galilee,  He  announced  His  departure  as 
at  hand,  (Matt.  xvii.  22,)  and  again  after  He  left  £phraim, 
(xx.  17.)  Two  days  before  the  feast,  He  repeated  that  at 
the  Passover  He  should  be  betrayed,  (Matt.  xxvi.  2.)  And 
now  the  feast  had  come,  and  with  it  "  His  hour."  He, 
knowing  all  this,  gives  at  this  introductory  supper  of  the 
feast,  a  new  and  last  proof  of  the  love  with  which  He  had 
loved  them.  With  the  full  knowledge  that  the  hour  of  His 
arrest  and  death  had  come,  and  that  He  no  more  should 
thus  meet  His  disciples,  He  shows  them,  in  the  most  ex- 
pressive way,  how  great  and  unchangeable  His  affection 
for  them.  In  this  way  the  abrupt  and  incidental  mention 
of  the  supper  (v.  2)  is  readily  explained ;  and  that  it  was 
the  paschal  supper  follows  from  the  whole  connection  of 
the  thought. 

The  meaning  is  thus  given  by  Norton  in  his  translation : 
"  But  Jesus,  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  knew  that 
the  hour  had  come  for  Him  to  pass  from  the  world  to  the 
Father ;  and  having  loved  His  own  who  were  to  remain  in 
this  world,  He  loved  them  to  the  last."  ■ 

If  we  connect  the  clause,  "  before  the  feast  of  the  Pass- 
over," with  aycwnpras,  the  meaning  is,  Jesus,  having  loved 
IBs  own  down  to  this  time,  or  to  the  Passover  which  was 
now  come,  and  knowing  that  the  hour  of  His  death  was  at 
hand,  continues  to  love  them,  even  to  the  end ;  and  now 
gives  a  fresh  proof  of  it  at  the  paschal  supper.  Here,  as 
before,  it  is  implied  that  this  supper,  at  the  beginning  of  th« 

»  See  also  Luthardt,  ii.  274. 


444  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

feast,  was  the  last  opportunity  He  should  have  of  manifest- 
ing His  love.  In  this  construction  the  antithesis  between 
"before  the  feast"  and  "to  the  end,"  is  most  clearly- 
brought  out.  The  love  which  He  had  felt  to  His  own  be- 
fore the  feast,  continued  firm  to  the  end,  and  was  shown  in 
the  act  of  washing  the  disciples'  feet.1  Still,  the  former  ex- 
planation is  to  be  preferred. 

This  clause  is,  however,  said  by  many  to  qualify  the 
whole  narrative,  and  not  to  belong  to  «St»>s  or  ayairrj<Ta<s ; 
thus  making  the  supper,  and  all  that  then  took  place,  to 
have  been  before  the  Passover."  It  is  said  that  it  could 
not  have  been  the  paschal  supper  on  the  evening  following 
the  14th  Nisan,  but  a  supper  probably  on  the  previous 
evening,  or  that  following  the  13th.*  But  of  this,  Norton 
(note  in  loco)  justly  says :  "  It  is  a  very  forced  interpreta- 
tion to  regard  the  words  *  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,' 
as  intended  to  fix  the  date  of  what  follows.  Supposing  the 
night  to  which  the  succeeding  narrative  relates  not  to  be 
the  night  of  the  Passover,  St.  John  has  in  the  second  verse 
abruptly  introduced  the  mention  of  a  supper  in  a  manner 
in  which  it  cannot  readily  be  believed  that  any  writer 
would."  From  the  preposition  "before,"  7rpo,  we  con- 
clude, then,  that  nothing  definite  in  regard  to  the  time  of 
the  supper  can  be  determined.  Supposing  all  between 
v.  1  and  v.  4  to  be  stricken  out,  and  the  statement  to  read, 
"  Now  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  &c,  He  riseth  from 
supper  and  laid  aside  his  garments,"  it  would  still  remain 
probable  that  the  paschal  supper  was  meant.  The  pre- 
sumption is  very  strong,  that  this  meal,  thus  incidentally 

1  See  Wieseler,  879 ;  Tholuck  in  loco ;  Robinson,  Har.  217. 

*  Meyer  and  Alford. 

>  That  the  form  of  expression,  "Before  the  feast  of  the  Passover,"  denotes 
the  day  before  the  Passover,  pridie  Pcuchatis,  is  affirmed  by  Bynaeus ;  who, 
however,  does  not  make  this  the  Paschal  supper.  See  Wieseler,  879,  who 
denies  that  the  expression  can  be  thus  understood. 


THE  SUPPER  OF  JOHN  THE  PASCHAL  SUPPER.    445 

mentioned,  must  have  been  that  so  prominently  and  in- 
separably associated  with  the  feast. 

An  additional  proof  that  this  was  not  the  paschal  sup- 
per is  found  by  many ■  in  the  feet  mentioned,  (John  xiii. 
29,)  that  none  of  the  disciples  knew  what  the  Lord  had 
said  to  Judas  at  the  table,  but  some  of  them  supposed  He 
had  told  him  to  buy  what  was  necessary  for  the  feast,  or  to 
give  something  to  the  poor.  It  is  said,  if  the  disciples  were 
now  eating  the  feast,  no  one  could  have  thought  that  Judas 
went  out  for  this  purpose.  Besides,  the  day  following  the 
paschal  supper,  or  15th  Nisan,  was  a  feast  sabbath,  when 
nothing  could  be  bought ;  nor  could  any  purchases  be 
made  upon  that  evening,  as  all  shopkeepers  would  be  en- 
gaged keeping  the  feast ;  nor  could  gifts  then  be  given  to 
the  poor.  Thence  it  follows  that  this  supper  was  previous 
to  the  beginning  of  the  feast.  But  this  inference  is  not 
well  grounded.  The  feast  continued  seven  days,  and  em- 
braced various  sacrifices  and  offerings  other  than  the  paschal 
lamb.  It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  a  master  of  a 
family,  speaking  at  this  first  meal,  should  thus  refer  to  the 
provision  to  be  made  for  the  further  keeping  of  the  feast. 
Judas,  as  the  treasurer  of  the  body  of  apostles,  was  in  this 
case  the  person  to  make  such  provision.  And  the  fact,  that 
he  went  out  immediately  after  the  Lord  had  spoken  to 
him,  would  naturally  suggest  to  others  that  something 
necessary  to  the  feast  was  to  be  at  once  procured.  The 
statement  that  nothing  could  be  purchased  upon  a  feast 
sabbath,  is  by  no  means  certain.  It  appears  rather,  that 
the  purchase  and  preparation  of  food  were  allowable  on  all 
feast  days,  though  not  on  the  fast  of  the  Atonement.1  That 
Judas  should  go  out,  as  some  supposed,  to  give  something 
to  the  poor,  indicates  a  special  urgency,  which  may  be  best 


>  Meyer,  Bleek,  Alford. 

•  Tboluck  in  loco ;   Wieseler,  344  and  366 ;   Luthardt,  ii.  286. 


446  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LOED. 

explained  as  referring  to  some  gifts  to  be  sacrificially  used 
on  the  morrow,  and  therefore  to  be  made  at  once. 

A  careful  examination  of  this  passage  seems  rather  to 
prove  that  this  was  the  paschal  supper,  than  to  disprove  it. 
The  disciples  heard  the  Lord  say  to  Judas,  "That  thou 
doest  do  quickly."  He  immediately  arises  and  goes  out, 
and  "  it  was  night."  Supposing  this  to  have  been  a  supper 
on  the  night  of  the  13th  Nisan,  and  a  full  day  before  the 
paschal  supper,  would  they  connect  his  departure  with  any 
preparations  for  the  feast  ?  The  next  day  would  give  him 
abundant  time  to  buy  all  that  was  necessary.  Why  hasten 
out  at  that  hour  of  the  night  ?  So  also  he  had  then  ample 
time  to  give  to  the  poor.  But  if  we  suppose  that  this  was 
the  paschal  supper,  and  that  the  next  day,  the  15th,  was 
the  first  day  of  the  feast,  we  can  readily  explain  their  con- 
jectures as  to  the  cause  of  Judas'  sudden  departure.  What 
he  was  to  do  must  be  done  at  once. 

The  next  passage  in  John,  and  that  most  relied  on  to 
prove  that  the  Lord  could  not  have  eaten  the  paschal  sup- 
per, is  found  xviii.  28  :  "  Then  led  they  Jesus  from  Caiaphas 
unto  the  hall  of  judgment ;  and  it  was  early ;  and  they 
themselves  went  not  into  the  judgment  hall  lest  they  should 
be  defiled,  but  that  they  might  eat  the  Passover."  This,  it 
is  said,  plainly  proves  that  the  Jews  had  not  yet  eaten  the 
Passover ;  and  that  the  supper  which  Jesus  had  eaten  on 
the  previous  evening,  could  not  have  been  the  paschal  sup- 
per, as  the  Synoptists  state.1 

Two  solutions  of  this  difficulty  are  given  :  First,  that 
those  who  would  not  go  into  the  judgment  hall,  were  those 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  who  had  been  engaged  during  the 
night,  while  the  other  Jews  were  keeping  the  feast,  in 
directing  the  proceedings  against  Jesus,  and  thus  had  had 
no  time  to  partake  of  the  paschal  supper.  Second,  that 
John  uses  the  expression,  "  eat  the  Passover,"  in  its  larger 

i  Meyer,  Bleek,  Alford. 


USE  OF  TERM  PASSOVER  BY  JOHN.         447 

meaning,  not  referring  to  the  paschal  lamb,  but  to  the 
offerings  eaten  on  the  second  day  of  the  feast.  The  former 
of  these  solutions  has  never  found  many  defenders,  though 
not  in  itself  impossible.  So  great  was  the  hate  against 
Jesus,  and  so  little  scrupulous  His  enemies,  that  we  cannot 
doubt,  that  to  compass  His  death,  they  would  have  post- 
poned for  a  time  the  paschal  supper,  or  even  have  neg- 
lected it  altogether.  There  are,  however,  other  obvious 
difficulties,  which  this  explanation  does  not  fully  meet. 

We  must  then  consider  the  second  of  these  solutions. 
It  is  admitted,  that  as  the  Synoptists  use  the  phrase  "  to  eat 
the  Passover,"  <f>ayeiv  ro  7ra<rxa,  it  always  means  to  eat  the 
paschal  supper,  (Matt.  xxvi.  17;  Mark  xiv.  12  and  14; 
Luke  xxii.  11  and  15.)  If  John  uses  it  in  the  same  sense, 
then  the  paschal  supper  was  eaten  by  the  Jews  on  the  day 
when  Jesus  was  crucified,  and  He  must  have  anticipated  it. 
But  the  usage  of  the  Synoptists  does  not  decide  the  usage 
of  John.  We  must  determine  its  meaning  from  the  way  in 
which  he  uses  the  phrase  elsewhere,  and  from  the  general 
character  of  his  writings.  It  has  already  been  shown,  that 
out  of  the  nine  times  in  which  he  uses  the  word  iraaxoy 
Passover,  in  six  it  is  applied  to  the  feast  generally,  and  not 
to  the  paschal  supper  only.  The  meaning  in  the  other  three 
passages  is  in  dispute.  Only  in  the  passage  before  us  does 
the  phrase  u  eat  the  Passover  "  occur.  The  simple  point 
is,  does  John  here  use  it  in  its  wider  or  narrower  mean- 
ing? 

Some  considerations,  drawn  from  the  character  of  John's 
Gospel,  as  influenced  by  the  period  of  time  at  which  he 
wrote,  may  serve  to  show  how  this  marked  distinction  in 
the  use  of  terms  between  him  and  the  Synoptists,  is  to  be 
explained.  John  wrote  toward  the  close  of  the  century,1 
and  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  To  him  the  Jews 
were  no  more  the  holy  people  of  God.    Rejecting  Jesus, 

i  Meyer,  about  80  a.  o. 


448  THE  LIFE  OF   OUK  LORD. 

and  afterwards  His  apostles,  they  had  themselves  been 
rejected.  Everywhere  he  speaks  of  them  distinctly  as 
"  The  Jews,"  formerly  the  Church  of  God,  but  now  cut  off, 
and  standing  in  a  hostile  attitude  to  Christ,  and  to  that 
new,  universal  Church,  composed  both  of  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, of  which  He  was  the  Head.1  Jewish  institutions  had, 
in  his  eyes,  been  emptied  of  their  significance  and  value, 
since  Christ,  in  whom  all  the  law  was  fulfilled,  had  come. 
Hence  he  speaks  of  them  commonly  as  the  institutions  of  a 
people  between  whom  and  himself  was  a  broad  line  of  dis- 
tinction. Their  purification  is  spoken  of  as  that  "of  the 
Jews ; "  the  Passover  as  "  a  feast  of  the  Jews ; "  Nicodemus, 
as  "  a  ruler  of  the  Jews."  The  Synoptists,  on  the  other 
hand,  writing  before  the  total  rejection  of  Judaism,  and 
whilst  it  still  stood  side  by  side  with  Christianity  as  of 
divine  authority  and  sanctity,  show,  by  their  mode  of  allu- 
sion, that  no  such  line  of  distinction  then  existed.  To  them, 
the  Jews  are  not  as  aliens,  but  still  the  chosen  people  of 
God. 

Placing  ourselves  in  the  position  of  John,  we  shall 
readily  understand  why  he  speaks  in  such  general  and  in- 
definite terms  of  Jewish  rites,  as  of  things  now  superseded. 
Since  Jesus,  the  true  Paschal  Lamb,  had  been  slain,  the 
true  paschal  supper  was  kept  only  in  the  Christian  church. 
To  Christians  he  could  say,  with  Paul,  (1  Cor.  v.  7,  8,) 
"  Christ,  our  Passover,  is  sacrificed  for  us ;  therefore,  let  us 
keep  the  feast,"  &c.  The  Jews,  in  their  Passover,  had 
only  the  shell  or  shadow  ;  the  Church  had  the  kernel  or 
substance.  Hence,  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  he  would 
refer  to  any  rites  of  the  Jews  at  this  feast  with  the  care 
that  marks  the  Synoptists.  He  does  not  distinguish,  as  do 
they,  its  several  component  parts,  but  speaks  of  it  only  in 
general  terms,  as  one  of  the  Jewish  feasts.    There  is  not, 

»  See  Meyer  an  John  i.  19  ;  Bleek,  247. 


USE  OP  TERM  PASSOVER  BY  JOHN.         449 

in  the  many  times  in  which  he  mentions  the  Passover,  any 
clear  proof  that  he  means  to  distinguish  the  paschal  supper 
from  the  solemnities  of  the  following  days.  Why,  then,  in 
the  passage  before  us,  are  we  forced  to  believe  that  the  Pass- 
over which  the  Jews  were  to  eat  on  the  day  of  the  cruci- 
fixion was  the  paschal  supper,  and  that  only  ?  Why  may 
he  not  mean  the  subsequent  sacrifices?  Standing,  as  he 
does,  to  the  Jews,  in  a  position  so  unlike  that  of  the  Synop- 
tists,  it  seems  most  arbitrary  to  assert  that  he  must  use 
language  with  precisely  the  same  strictness ;  and  that  "  to 
eat  the  Passover  ■  must  mean  to  eat  the  paschal  lamb. 

As  has  been  said,  upon  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  or  the 
the  15th,  thank  offerings  of  the  flock  and  herd  were  slain 
and  eaten.  There  is  certainly  no  intrinsic  reason  why  John 
may  not  have  meant  these.  At  the  time  of  Hezekiah,  (2 
Chron.  xxx.  22,)  "they  did  eat  the  feast  seven  days,  offering 
peace  offerings."  But  it  is  said  in  reply,1  that  if  the  phrase 
44  to  eat  the  Passover  "  may  be  used  of  the  other  offerings, 
inclusive  of  the  paschal  lamb,  it  cannot  be  exclusive  of  it. 
But  this  is  by  no  means  obvious.  Passover,  with  John,  is  a 
term  denoting  the  whole  festival ;  and  why,  if  the  paschal 
supper  was  past,  might  he  not  employ  it  to  designate  the 
remaining  feasts?  To  affirm  that  he  could  not  is  mere 
affirmation.  Norton,'  referring  to  the  oft-repeated  remark 
that  the  term  Passover  is  never  used  "  absolutely  "  to  de- 
note the  thank  offerings  considered  apart  from  the  paschal 
supper,  observes:  "This  remark  has  been  repeatedly  praised 
for  its  acuteness  by  Kuinoel  and  Strauss.  But,  in  fact,  it 
only  implies  a  forgetfulness  of  a  very  common  metonymy, 
by  which  the  name  of  a  whole  is  given  to  a  part.  If,  when 
the  paschal  festival  were  half  over,  it  had  been  said  that 
certain  Jews  desired  to  avoid  pollution,  that  they  might 
keep  the  Passover,  every  one  perceives  that  the  expression 

1  Meyer  and  others,  after  Mosheim.  *  Notes  2,  466. 


450  THE  LIFE   OP    OUR   LORD. 

would  be  unobjectionable,  though  no  one  would  tiring  of 
applying  the  name  Passover  *  absolutely '  to  the  last  three 
or  four  days  of  the  festival." 

The  exact  nature  of  the  defilement  to  which  the  Jews 
would  be  exposed  by  entering  the  judgment  hall  does  not 
appear.  (See  Acts  x.  28.)  In  the  law,  defilements  are 
mentioned  which  were  only  for  a  day,  and  which  could  be 
cleansed  by  ablution,  (Lev.  xv.  5-11,  and  xxii.  5-7.)  It 
is  supposed  by  some  that  contact  with  the  heathen  was  of 
this  class,  and  that,  therefore,  if  the  day  of  the  crucifixion 
had  been  the  14th  Nisan,  the  Jews  could  still  have  cleansed 
themselves  by  evening,  and  been  ready  to  eat  the  paschal 
supper.  If,  however,  it  was  the  15th,  during  which  day  the 
thank  offerings  were  sacrificed  and  eaten,  they  could  not 
have  partaken  of  them.  Hence  it  is  inferred  that  the 
thank  offerings,  rather  than  the  paschal  supper,  were 
meant,  and  that  this  day  was  the  15th  rather  than  the 
14th.1  Much  stress,  however,  in  the  present  state  of  our 
knowledge  of  Jewish  customs,  cannot  be  laid  upon  this  ar- 
gument.' 

This  passage,  then,  affords  no  data  for  the  final  deter- 
mination of  the  question  as  to  the  time  of  the  paschal  sup- 
per. If  any  think  that  John  could  not  have  used  the  phrase 
"  to  eat  the  Passover  "  in  any  other  sense  than  the  Synop- 
tists  used  it,  such  must  admit  a  chronological  difference 
between  him  and  them  which  we  find  no  satisfactory  way 
to  reconcile.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  we  find  it  not  only 
possible,  but  also  probable,  that  he  should  thus  speak  of  the 
festival  apart  from  the  supper,  the  supposed  difference  dis- 
appears. 

The  next  important  passage  we  find  xix.  14 :  "  And  it 
was  the  preparation  of  the  Passover,  and  about  the  sixth 
hour ;  and  he  saith  unto  the  Jews,  Behold  your  King."     A 

»  So  Bynaeus,  iii.  13.  ■  See  Friedlieb,  Arch.  102 ;  Bleek,  113. 


THE   DAY    OF   PREPARATION.  451 

different  punctuation  of  this  passage  has  been  proposed, 
making  it  to  read  thus:  "And  it  was  the  preparation. 
The  hour  of  the  Passover  was  about  the  sixth."  !  Though 
some  plausible  reasons  may  be  given  for  this  change,  yet  it 
involves  considerable  difficulties.  We  shall  follow  the  gen- 
erally received  punctuation. 

Our  first  inquiry  relates  to  the  meaning  of  the  term 
"preparation,"  irapaaKevrj.  It  occurs  in  the  Gospel  five 
times  besides  the  text :  Matt,  xxvii.  62,  Mark  xv.  42,  Luke 
xxiii.  54,  John  xix.  31,  John  xix.  42.  In  all  these  cases 
there  is  no  doubt  as  to  its  meaning.  It  was,  as  Mark  ex- 
plains it,  "  the  day  before  the  Sabbath ; "  or  the  day  in 
which  preparation  was  made  for  the  Sabbath.  Such  prepa- 
ration, though  not  expressly  commanded  in  the  law,  was 
yet  made  necessary  by  the  strictness  of  the  commands  re- 
specting the  Sabbath,  which  forbade  all  labor,  even  to  pre- 
pare food,  on  that  day.  (Compare  Exod.  xvi.  5.)  Hence  it 
became  the  habit  of  the  Jews  to  observe  Friday  afternoon, 
from  three  o'clock,  as  a  time  of  getting  ready  for  the  Sab- 
bath, which  began  at  sunset.9  As  they  came  more  and 
more  under  bondage  to  that  legal  spirit  which  so  charac- 
terized the  Pharisees,  and  the  rigor  of  the  original  Sabbath 
laws  was  augmented  by  burdensome  additions,  of  which 
many  examples  are  to  be  found  in  the  Evangelists  and  in 
Josephus,  this  period  of  preparation  became  more  and  more 
important.  Thus,  by  degrees,  Friday,  or  the  irpoo-apfiaTov, 
became  known  as  the  irapaa-K€vrjt  or  preparation ;  as  Satur- 
day, the  day  of  rest,  was  known  as  the  Sabbath,  all  other 
days  being  distinguished  only  as  the  first,  second,  third,  <fcc. 
As  the  preparation  was  made  in  the  afternoon  of  Friday,  or 
during  that  part  of  it  which  was  known  as  "  the  evening," 
this  term  was  generally  applied  to  it  in  Hebrew  and  Chal- 
dee,  as  by  the  Germans  the  day  before  the  Sabbath  is 

»  So  Hofmann,  followed  by  Liechtenstein,  859. 
'  Josephus,  Antiq.,  16.  6.  2. 


452  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

called  Sonnabend,  or  Sun-evening.  Thus  the  6ixth  day  of 
the  week  received  its  current  name  from  its  peculiar  rela- 
tions to  the  Sabbath  ;  and  irapao-Kcirr)  became  equivalent  to 
Friday,  and  is  uniformly  so  rendered  in  the  Syriac.1 

From  this  origin  of  the  term,  and  from  the  fact  that  it 
was  generally  used  to  designate  the  sixth  day  of  the  week, 
and  that  it  is  so  used  both  by  the  Synoptists  and  by  John, 
we  are  disposed  to  infer,  that  in  the  passage  before  us,  it 
means  the  preparation  day  before  the  Sabbath,  or  Friday. 
But  it  is  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that  this  is  here  inadmis- 
sible, because  it  is  not  simply  said,  "  it  was  the  preparation," 
but  it  was  "  the  preparation  of  the  Passover."  It  must,  there- 
fore, denote  a  day  of  preparation,  not  for  the  Sabbath,  but 
for  the  feast ;  and  this  day  must  have  been  the  14th  Nisan, 
as  the  first  day  of  the  feast  was  the  15th."  This  of  course 
implies,  that  there  was  a  preparation  day  for  the  feasts  as 
well  as  for  the  Sabbath.  And  this  first  demands  our  atten- 
tion. 

It  is  admitted  by  all  that  the  proofs  of  such  a  preparation 
day  are  very  indistinct.  To  meet  the  difficulty,  that  there 
is  no  mention  in  Jewish  writings  of  such  a  preparation  day 
in  connection  with  any  of  the  feasts,  some  would  confine  it 
to  those  feast  days  that  had  a  sabbatical  character,  in  this 
case,  the  first  and  seventh.8  As  such,  preparation  was  to 
be  made  for  them  as  for  the  weekly  Sabbath.  But  the 
main  reason  that  made  a  time  of  preparation  necessary  for 
the  weekly  Sabbath,  was,  that  on  that  day  no  food  could  be 
prepared,  whereas  it  could  be  upon  a  feast  sabbath.  Nor 
anywhere  in  Jewish  history  does  the  latter  appear  as  equal 
to  the  former  in  sanctity  and  dignity.  All  labor  but  ser- 
vile labor  was  then  lawful.  There  seems,  then,  no  good 
reason  why  every  feast  sabbath  should  have  had  its  day  of 
preparation ;  nor  is  there  any  proof  of  the  fact.     If  there 

1  Michaelis,  44.  »  So  Meyer,  Alford,  Winer,  Bleek. 

3  Bleek,  Beitrage,  120. 


THE  DAT   OP   PREPARATION.  453 

was,  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14th  Nisan,  a  period  thus  set 
apart  and  designated  as  "the  Passover  eve,"  Robinson1 
maintains  that  the  expression  did  not  "  arise  until  after  the 
destruction  of  the  temple,  and  the  consequent  cessation  of 
the  regular  and  legal  Passover  meal,  when  of  course  the 
seven  days  of  unleavened  bread  became  the  main  festival." 
To  such  a  Passover  eve  the  expression  in  the  text,  "  prep- 
aration of  the  Passover,"  could  not  apply. 

Thus  we  reach  the  result,  that  the  term  "  preparation," 
iropao-Kcvi7,  is  never  applied,  so  far  as  we  know,  to  any  day 
preceding  a  feast,  but  is  applied  by  the  Evangelists,  by 
Josejmus,  and  by  the  Rabbis,  to  the  day  before  the  Sabbath. 
Recurring  weekly,  this  would  readily  become  the  current 
designation  of  the  sixth  day,  and  equivalent  to  its  proper 
name,  or  to  our  Friday. 

But  we  have  still  to  meet  the  grammatical  difficulty. 
It  is  insisted  that  the  nature  of  this  preparation  is  expressly 
defined  by  the  addition  "  of  the  Passover,"  and  cannot 
therefore  refer  to  the  weekly  Sabbath.  But  if  irapao-Ktvt)  is 
used  as  equivalent  to  Friday,  it  would  simply  mean,  this 
was  the  Friday  of  the  Passover,  or  the  preparation  day  for 
that  Sabbath  that  occurred  during  the  paschal  week.  It  is 
thus  translated  by  Campbell :  "  Now  it  was  the  preparation 
of  the  paschal  Sabbath ; "  by  Norton  :  "  The  preparation 
day  of  the  paschal  week."  The  latter  observes,  "  that  the 
14th  of  Nisan,  whenever  it  began  and  ended,  was  the  day 
of  the  Passover ;  that  it  was  ordained  to  be  so  in  the  Old 
Testament;  that  it  is  so  designated  by  Josephus;  that 
there  is  no  question  that  it  was  universally  recognized  as 
such  ;  that  it  was  consequently  so  recognized  by  John ; 
and  that  therefore  it  is  utterly  incredible  that  he  should,  in 
this  solitary  instance,  have  gone  out  of  his  way  to  call  the 
14th  of  Nisan,  the  proper  day  for  the  Passover,  by  the 
name  of  the  '  preparation  for  the  Passover,'  even  if  any 

i  liar.  220. 


454  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

ground  can  be  imagined  for  giving  it  that  name."  There 
is  much  force  in  these  observations.  The  law  (Exod.  xiL 
18)  says,  "  In  the  first  month,  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
month,  at  the  evening,  ye  shall  eat  unleavened  bread,"  &c. 
If  then  the  14th  was  universally  regarded  as  the  Passover, 
(see  Matt.  xxvi.  17 ;  Mark  xiv.  12,)  how  could  John  speak 
of  it  as  the  day  of  preparation  for  the  Passover  ?  This 
expression  would  lead  us  rather  to  look  upon  it  as  the  1 3th, 
which  only  could  be  properly  called  the  day  before  the 
Passover.1 

Some  light  may  be  gained  by  asking  what  was  the 
object  of  the  Evangelist  in  mentioning,  that  it  was  "the 
preparation  of  the  Passover  "  when  Jesus  was  brought  be- 
fore Pilate.  Was  it  chronological  simply  ?  This  is  possible ; 
but  he  seems  to  have  had  a  higher  purpose.  It  was  the 
time  when  the  Jews  should  have  been  engaged  in  making 
themselves  ready  for  the  holiest  services  of  God,  in  His 
temple  ;  but  their  preparation  consisted  in  putting  His  Son 
to  the  shameful  death  of  the  cross.  The  incongruity  of 
their  labors  with  the  character  of  the  day,  is  thus  brought 
into  the  clearest  contrast.* 

The  phrase,  "  preparation  of  the  Passover,"  as  used  by 
John,  does  not  then,  we  conclude,  compel  us  to  regard  the 
day  of  the  crucifixion  as  the  day  before  the  Passover. 

Still  another  passage  is  found,  (John  xix.  31:)  "The 
Jews,  therefore,  because  it  was  the  preparation,  that  the 
bodies  should  not  remain  upon  the  cross  on  the  Sabbath 
day,  (for  that  Sabbath  day  was  an  high  day,  fxeyaX^)  be- 

1  Wieseler,  835,  note  8 ;  contra,  Bleek,  122. 

1  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  (Journal  Sac.  Lit.,  July,  1850)  that 
TtapcurKfinf  means  properly  "  preparation  time,"  and  comprises  the  interval 
between  mid-day  or  the  sixth  hour,  and  sunset  or  the  twelfth.  Translated 
according  to  this  view,  the  passage  before  us  would  read :  "  For  about  the 
sixth  hour,  the  preparation  time  on  Passover  day  commenced."  This  makes 
it  necessary  to  read  wpa  c/cttj  with  the  iota  subscript.  This  is  hardly  satis- 
factory. 


WHY   SABBATH    OP   PASSION   WEEK   A   HIGH   DAY.       455 

sought  Pilate,"  &c.  The  ground  upon  which  this  Sabbath 
is  designated  as  a  high  day,  is  supposed  by  many !  to  be, 
that  the  first  day  of  the  feast,  or  15th  Nisan,  which  was  a 
feast  sabbath,  (Exod.  xii.  16,)  fell  upon  the  weekly  Sabbath, 
and  thus  it  was  a  double  Sabbath,  and  "  an  high  day."  This, 
in  itself  considered,  would  be  a  sufficient  and  satisfactory 
explanation.  But  no  weight  can  be  attached  to  it,  as  show- 
ing that  this  was  actually  the  case.  If  the  weekly  Sabbath 
fell  upon  the  16th  Nisan,  or  the  second  day  of  the  feast, 
a  day  distinguished  from  the  other  days  as  the  time  for  the 
waving  of  the  sheaf  of  first  fruits,  it  would,  with  equal  pro- 
priety, be  called  a  high  day."  "  It  was  an  high  day,  first, 
because  it  was  the  Sabbath ;  second,  it  was  the  day  when 
all  the  people  presented  themselves  in  the  temple ;  third,  it 
was  the  day  when  the  sheaf  of  first  fruits  was  offered."  * 
There  are  no  data  for  a  positive  decision  of  the  question ; 
and  whether  the  weekly  Sabbath  fell  on  the  15th  or  16th 
Nisan,  it  might  in  either  case  be  called  an  high,  or  great 
day.  In  point  of  fact,  this  question  is  always  decided  ac- 
cording as  the  day  of  the  crucifixion,  for  other  reasons,  is 
placed  upon  the  14th  or  15th  Nisan.  Cudworth's  assertion, 
that  "  great  day,"  in  the  Greek  of  the  Hellenists,  is  used  for 
the  first  or  the  last  day  of  every  feast,  in  which  there  was 
a  holy  convocation  to  the  Lord,  is  not  sustained  by  the  pas- 
sage to  which  he  refers,  (Isa.  i.  13.)  Every  weekly  Sabbath, 
as  well  as  every  feast  sabbath,  there  was  a  holy  convoca- 
tion, (Lev.  xxiii.  3.) 

Having  now  examined  all  the  disputed  passages  in  John 
usually  cited  to  show  that  he  puts  the  crucifixion  upon  the 
14th  Nisan,  let  us  notice  some  of  the  objections  made  to 
the  1 5th.  1st.  The  improbability  of  such  a  trial  and  execu- 
tion upon  a  feast  sabbath.  It  is  said,  that,  according  to 
Rabbinical  precepts,  the  Sanhedrim  could  not  upon  that 

1  Meyer,  Alford,  Bleek.  a  So  Wieseler,  Robinson,  Lichtenstein. 

'  Lightfoot  in  loco. 


456  THE  LIFE  OF   OUE  LOBD. 

day  have  held  a  session ;  that  they  could  not  have  sent 
armed  men  to  arrest  Jesus;  that  no  judicial  proceedings 
were  lawful,  nor  any  public  execution.1  All  here  depends 
upon  the  degree  of  sanctity  that  was  ascribed  to  a  feast  sab- 
bath. It  appears  upon  the  face  of  it  very  remarkable,  that 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  whom  we  cannot  suppose  to 
have  been  ignorant  of  Jewish  customs,  should  have  so  ex- 
pressly put  these  events  on  a  feast  sabbath,  if  they  were  so 
clearly  forbidden  by  the  Rabbis.  They  could  not  but 
know  that  all  their  Jewish  readers  would  at  once  perceive 
the  inconsistency.  The  very  fact,  then,  that  these  Evan- 
gelists do  place  the  arrest,  trial,  and  execution  of  Jesus 
upon  a  feast  sabbath,  together  with  the  judicial  sessions  of 
the  Sanhedrim  and  the  subsequent  purchase  of  spices  and 
preparations  for  His  embalming,  gives  the  strongest  pre- 
sumptive proof  that  these  were  not  incompatible  with  the 
character  of  the  day.  As  against  their  statements,  any 
Rabbinical  precepts  of  a  later  age  cannot  be  considered  as 
decisive.  But,  in  point  of  fact,  it  does  not  appear  from  the 
Rabbins  themselves,  that  Jesus  could  not  have  been  cruci- 
fied on  that  day.  Bleek  (140)  admits  that  criminals  were 
often  arrested  on  the  Sabbath,  and  of  course,  if  necessary, 
by  men  bearing  arms.'  That  the  Sanhedrim  held  its  ses- 
sions on  feast  days  and  Sabbaths,  is  proved  from  the  Gamara ; 
and  also,  that  on  those  days  sentence  of  death  could  be 
passed.8  That  the  execution  of  criminals  was  purposely 
reserved  till  the  feasts,  in  order  to  produce  a  greater  im- 
pression upon  the  people,  appears  from  Maimonides,  quoted 
by  Ainsworth,  on  Deut.  xvii.  13:  "They  put  him  not  to 
death  in  the  judgment  hall,  that  is,  in  his  city,  but  carry 
him  up  to  the  high  Synedrioil  in  Jerusalem,  and  keep  him 
until  the  feast,  and  strangle  him  at  the  feast,  as  it  is  said, 

»  Ebrard,  Bleek. 

*  See  Winer,  ii.  537  ;  also  John  vii.  32  ;  Acts  xii.  3. 

»  See  the  citations  in  Lightfoot,  and  in  Tholuck  in  loco. 


EXECUTIONS   AT   THE   FEASTS.  457 

*  all  the  people  shall  hear  and  fear.'  "  It  seems,  also,  to  have 
been  the  custom  of  Pilate  and  of  other  governors,  who  al- 
ways went  up  to  Jerusalem  at  the  feasts,  then  to  try  and 
punish  criminals;  and  thus  it  was  that  the  two  malefactors 
were  crucified  at  the  same  time  with  Jesus.  The  crucifixion 
itself  was  performed,  not  by  the  Jews,  but  by  Pilate  and  his 
soldiers.  The  following  observations  of  Tholuck  seem  well 
founded  :  "  We  consider  it,  therefore,  as  certain,  that  judi- 
cial proceedings  were  also  held  on  the  feast  days,  perhaps 
under  certain  legal  provisos,  and  that  this  very  period,  when 
large  assemblages  of  the  people  came  together,  was,  for  the 
reason  mentioned  Deut.  xvii.  13,  selected  for  the  execu- 
tion of  notorious  criminals." 

But  if  we  admit  that,  as  a  rule,  the  Jews  did  not  arrest, 
and  try,  and  execute,  criminals  during  the  feasts,  still  the 
case  of  Jesus  may  have  been  an  exception.  How  great 
was  the  hate  of  the  Pharisees  and  chief  priests  and  elders 
to  Him,  we  have  already  had  abundant  opportunities  to 
observe.  They  stuck  at  nothing,  if  they  could  but  accom- 
plish His  death.  Here,  if  ever,  the  end  would  in  their  eyes 
have  justified  the  means ;  and  when  the  long-desired  op- 
portunity of  getting  their  dreaded  enemy  into  their  power 
came,  they  were  not  likely  to  be  prevented  from  using  it 
by  any  conscientious  scruples  respecting  the  sanctity  of  the 
day.  That  even  the  sanctity  of  the  weekly  Sabbath  was 
no  barrier  against  popular  passion,  appears  from  Luke 
iv.  16-30,  where  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth  attempted  to 
put  Jesus  to  death  on  that  day.  So  also  the  Jews  at 
Jerusalem,  at  the  feast  of  Dedication,  attempted,  first  to 
stone  Him,  and  afterward  to  arrest  Him,  (John  x.  22-39.) 
Upon  the  last  day  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  "  the  great 
day  of  the  feast,"  the  Sanhedrim  was  in  session,  and  officers 
were  engaged  in  the  attempt  to  take  Him,  (John  vii.  37- 
52.)  Upon  the  weekly  Sabbath  the  chief  priests  and  Phar- 
20 


458  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LORD. 

isees  did  not  hesitate  to  go  to  Pilate  to  take  measures  for 
sealing  the  sepulchre,  (Matt,  xxvii.  62-66.) 

2d.  It  is  said,  that  no  one  after  the  paschal  supper  could 
leave  the  city  till  the  next  morning,  and  that  therefore 
Jesus,  upon  this  evening,  could  not  have  gone  to  the  gar- 
den of  Gethsemane.  (See  Exod.  xii.  22.)  It  seems  evident, 
however,  that  this  direction  was  not  designed  to  be  per- 
manently observed,  any  more  than  the  command  (v.  11)  to 
eat  it  standing,  with  loins  girded,  shoes  on  the  feet,  and 
staff  in  the  hand.  We  know,  in  point  of  fact,  that  the  Jews 
in  the  Lord's  time  did  not  observe  these  and  other  direc- 
tions, regarding  them  as  peculiar  to  its  first  institution. 

3d.  It  is  said,  that  the  preparation  of  spices  and  oint- 
ments for  the  Lord's  embalming,  upon  the  afternoon  of  the 
day  of  the  crucifixion,  (Luke  xxiii.  56  ;  John  xix,  38-40,) 
implies  that  it  was  not  a  feast  sabbath.  Here,  also,  all  de- 
pends upon  the  strictness  with  which  the  Jews  observed 
the  feast  sabbaths.  As  we  have  seen,  Maimonides  men- 
tions bathing  and  anointing,  as  things  that  might  be  done 
on  the  feast  days ;  and,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  every 
thing  necessary  to  prepare  the  dead  for  burial  would  then 
be  permitted.  That  purchases  could  be  made  even  on  the 
Sabbath,  is  shown  by  Tholuck,  (on  John  xiii.  1,)  if  the  price 
was  not  agreed  upon,  and  no  money  paid.  But  with  what- 
soever strictness  the  feast  sabbath  was  usually  observed, 
we  cannot  question  that  both  Joseph  and  Nicodemus  would 
have  regarded  themselves  as  fully  warranted  to  perform, 
during  its  hours,  the  last  offices  of  love  to  one  who  had 
taught  them  in  express  words,  and  shown  by  His  example, 
that  He  was  Lord  of  the  Sabbath. 

That  Luke  (xxiii.  54)  should  designate  the  day  follow- 
ing the  crucifixion  as  a  Sabbath,  "  And  that  day  was  the 
preparation,  and  the  Sabbath  drew  on,"  has  been  explained 
as  showing  that   the    day  of  the  crucifixion   could  not 


SANCTITY  OP  A  FEAST  SABBATH.  459 

have  been  a  feast  sabbath.1  But  it  proves  only  that  the 
Evangelists,  in  conformity  with  Jewish  opinion,  regarded 
the  weekly  Sabbath  as  more  sacred  than  the  feast  sabbath. 

4th.  It  is  said  that  the  account  given  of  Simon  of  Cy- 
rene,  (Mark  xv.  21  ;  Luke  xxiii.  26,)  who,  coming  out  of 
the  country  at  the  time  Jesus  was  on  His  way  to  the  place 
of  crucifixion,  was  compelled  to  bear  His  cross,  is  additional 
evidence  that  this  was  not  a  feast  sabbath,  he  having  prob- 
ably been  at  work.  But  if  this  were  so,  we  have  still  to 
inquire  respecting  the  nature  of  the  work.  Lightfoot  sup- 
poses him  to  have  come  from  the  field,  bearing  wood,  which 
was  lawful  on  a  feast  day.  But  it  is  not  said  that  he  had 
been  out  in  the  fields  at  work,  nor  that  he  had  travelled 
any  distance  ;  and  to  come  from  the  country  into  the  city 
upon  a  feast  sabbath  was  no  violation  of  any  law.  For 
aught  that  we  know,  he  was  a  resident  of  Jerusalem,  who 
was  casually  without  the  wall,  and  was  entering  the  gate 
when  he  met  Jesus  ;  or  he  may  have  been  a  pilgrim,  who 
had  come  up  to  the  feast. 

5th.  It  is  said  that  the  Synoptists,  in  their  mention  of 
the  day  of  crucifixion,  give  no  hint  that  it  had  a  sabbatical 
character.  It  is  true  that  they  do  not  do  this  in  express 
terms,  but  they  plainly  imply  it.  According  to  them,  the 
Lord  ate  the  Passover  at  the  legal  time,  on  the  14th  Nisan  ; 
the  day  therefore  of  His  death  was  the  16th,  or  the  first 
feast  sabbath.  That  they  designate  it  as  the  preparation 
day,  without  making  prominent  its  sabbatical  character, 
simply  shows  what  great  importance  they  attached  to  the 
fact  that  the  Lord  died  and  was  buried  before  the  weekly 
Sabbath  began.  This  was  of  far  more  moment  to  them.,  as 
illustrating  the  relation  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  to  the 
Christian,  than  to  make  prominent  the  sabbath  character 
of  the  first  day  of  the  feast. 

We  thus  reach  the  result  that  there  is  no  real  discrep- 
»  So  Meyer. 


460  TttE  LITE   OF   OUE  LORD. 

ancy  between  the  Synoptists  and  John.  The  Lord  ate  the 
true  paschal  supper  at  the  appointed  time — the  time  when 
it  was  eaten  by  the  Jews  in  general,  on  the  evening  follow- 
ing the  14th  Nisan. 


Thursday  Eve,  14th  Nisan,  6th  April. 

As  the  disciples  are  about  to  take  their  places  at  Lukk  xxii.  24-30. 
the  table,  Jesus  observes  a  strife  among  them  for 

precedency  and  seats  of  honor.     To  rebuke  them,  He  John  xiii.  2-20. 

arose  and  girded  Himself,  and  proceeded  to  wash  their  Lckk  xxii.  15-18. 

feet.     Afterward,  while  they  were  eating,  He  declares  Matt.  xxvi.  20-24. 

that  one  of  them  should  betray  Him.     The  declara-  Mark  xiv.  18-21. 

tion  creates  great  excitement  among  the  apostles,  Luki  xxii.  21-23. 

and  they  begin  to  ask  anxiously,  Is  it  I?    The  Lord  John  xiii.  21,  22. 
describes  the  traitor  as  one  that  was  eating  with  Him, 

but  without  designating  him  further.    Peter  makes  a  John  xiii  28-30. 
sign  to  John  to  ask  Him  who  it  was,  which  he  does, 
and  Jesus  gives  him  privately  a  sign ;  and  dipping 

the  sop,  gives  it  to  Judas,  who  asks,  Is  it  I  ?    Jesus  Matt.  xxvi.  25. 
answers  him  affirmatively,  and  he  immediately  goes 

out,  to  the  surprise  of  those  apostles  who  do  not  un-  Matt.  xxvi.  26-29. 

derstand  the  cause.     After  the  departure  of  Judas,  Mark  xiv.  22-25. 

the  Lord  proceeds  to  the  institution  of  the  eucharistic  Luki  xxii.  19,  20. 
supper. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  arrange  the  events  of  this  supper 
in  a  chronological  order,  as  no  one  of  the  Evangelists  has 
so  narrated  them.  There  are  four  points  that  especially  de- 
mand our  attention  :  the  strife  for  precedency ;  the  washing 
of  the  disciples'  feet ;  the  announcement  of  Judas'  treachery 
and  his  departure  ;  and  the  institution  of  the  eucharist. 

Luke  alone  mentions  that  there  was  "a  strife  among 
them,  which  of  them  should  be  accounted  greatest."  When 
during  the  supper  did  this  occur?  This  Evangelist  nar- 
rates in  the  following  order :  first  the  Passover  and  institu- 
tion of  the  Lord's  supper ;  second,  the  announcement  of 


EVENTS   OP  THE  PASCHAL   SUPPER.  461 

Judas'  treachery  ;  third,  the  strife  for  precedency.  Many 
of  the  earlier  harmonists  follow  tins  order  as  the  chrono- 
logical one,  and  some  of  the  moderns.1  But  this  has  great 
intrinsic  difficulties.  It  is  scarce  possible  that,  after  the 
discovery  of  the  treason  of  Judas,  and  with  the  solemn  im- 
pression which  the  Lord's  words  respecting  the  traitor 
must  have  made  upon  them,  and  after  they  had  eaten  His 
sacred  supper,  any  such  strife  could  have  occurred.  And 
the  improbability  is  increased  if,  before  this,  He  had  taught 
them  humility  by  washing  their  feet.  Upon  these  grounds 
most  affirm  that  Luke's  order  is  not  chronological.*  Shall 
we  then  place  the  strife  at  the  beginning  of  the  feast  ? 
This  is  most  probable ;  though  some,  as  Calvin,  would 
identify  it  with  the  incident  mentioned  in  Matt.  xx.  24, 
and  suppose  it  related  here  out  of  its  place.  The  strife 
may  have  arisen  respecting  their  places  at  the  table,  each 
wishing  to  be  as  near  the  Lord  as  possible  ;  the  degree  of 
nearness  being  an  index  of  rank  in  the  future  kingdom.' 

Luke  does  not  mention  the  feet  washing,  nor  John  this 
strife  i  but  the  two  accounts  combined  form  a  consistent 
whole.  The  Lord,  after  rebuking  the  disciples  in  words, 
proceeds  to  teach  them  in  a  symbolic  manner  in  what  their 
real  greatness  should  consist,  by  girding  Himself,  and  tak- 
ing a  towel  to  wash  their  feet.  Both  events  are  thus  to  be 
placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  feast.  Some,  however, 
would  place  the  washing  of  the  feet  at  the  close  of  the  sup- 
per, and  this  has  a  seeming  support  in  our  English  version, 
John  xiiL  2 :  "  And  supper  being  ended,  He  riseth,"  <fce.4 

»  Patritius,  Alford.  »  Calvin,  Newcome,  Ebrard.  Oostensee. 

*  Lightfoot  supposes  the  strife  to  have  been  between  Peter,  James,  and 
John,  and  that  Peter  began  it.  As  to  the  degrees  of  honor  attached  to  the 
various  places  at  the  table,  see  Becker's  Oallus,  Eug.  trans.,  472. 

«  The  text  is  disputed.  The  received  text  is  Sdirvov  ytvo/xfyov ;  so  Al- 
ford. Teschendorf  has  yivoficvov ;  so  Meyer.  It  is  rendered  by  Norton, 
N during  supper;  "  by  Campbell,  "  while  they  were  at  supper; "  by  Alford, 
"supper  being  prepared,  or  going  on." 


462  1HE  LIFE  OF   OUB  LOBD. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  commencement  of  the 
meal  is  meant.  Some,  however,  would  put  the  feet  wash- 
ing at  the  close  of  the  paschal  supper,  and  before  the 
eucharistic  supper ;  and  others  still  after  the  eucharist. 
That  it  was  at  the  close  of  the  meal  is  affirmed  by  Thom- 
son, (i.  183,)  on  the  ground  of  oriental  usage,  it  being  cus- 
tomary to  wash  the  hands  and  mouth  after  eating.  "  The 
pitcher  and  ewer  are  always  brought,  and  the  servant,  with 
a  napkin  over  his  shoulder,  pours  water  on  your  hands. 
If  there  is  no  servant,  they  perform  this  office  for  one  an- 
other." In  this  case,  however,  Jesus  must  have  washed 
both  hands  and  feet ;  but  it  is  plain  from  Peter's  words, 
(v.  9,  compare  v.  5,)  that  He  washed  their  feet  only.  It 
has  been  said  that  washing  of  the  feet  before  a  meal  was 
an  act  of  customary  cleanliness,  and  that,  no  servant  being 
present  to  perform  it,  each  shrank  from  doing  it,  as  imply- 
ing inferiority.1  The  references,  however,  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament show  only  that  it  was  customary  to  wash  the  feet 
after  a  journey,  and  not  always  before  a  meal.  The  hands 
were  usually  washed  three  times  during  the  paschal  supper : 
after  the  first  cup  of  wine ;  after  the  bitter  herbs  and  the 
second  cup ;  and  after  the  eating  of  the  lamb.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  the  feet  were  washed  after  the  first  cup,  (Luke 
xxii.  17.) 

It  does  not  appear  with  what  disciple  the  Lord  began 
the  feet  washing.  "  If  He  did  observe  any  order,"  says 
Lightfoot,  "  He  began  with  Peter,  who  sat  in  the  next 
place  immediately  to  Himself."  This  commentator  sup- 
poses that  He  washed  the  feet  of  Peter,  James,  and  John 
only,  thus  avoiding  the  washing  of  Judas.  Chrysostom 
affirms  that  He  began  with  Judas  ;  Greswell  that  He  began 
with  Peter  and  ended  with  Judas.  It  seems  evident  from 
vs.  5  and  6  that  Peter  was  not  the  first,  and  from  vs.  10 
and  1 1  that  the  feet  of  Judas  were  washed. 

1  Beugel,  Ebrard,  Da  Costa. 


THE  TKKACHERY    OP   JUDAS   EXPOSED.  463 

Some  have  found  proof  that  this  was  not  the  paschal  sup- 
per in  the  fact  that  Jesus  "  sat  down  with  the  Twelve,"  and 
did  not  eat  standing,  as  directed,  (Exod.  xii.  11.)  Culvin, 
who  regarded  this  command  as  binding,  supposes,  there- 
fore, that  He  ate  the  Passover  standing,  and  afterward  sat 
down.  But,  as  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Jews  generally 
sat  at  this  feast,  either  because  this  was  the  posture  of  free- 
men, or  because  they  regarded  the  command  of  Moses  as 
limited  to  its  first  observance,  there  is  no  good  reason  why 
He  should  not  have  followed  the  general  custom.1 

The  third  point  is  the  announcement  by  the  Lord  of 
the  treachery  of  Judas,  and  the  departure  of  the  traitor. 
In  His  reply  to  Peter,  (John  xiii.  10,)  He  had  said,  "  Ye 
are  clean,  but  not  all."  Probably  no  one  then  knew  the 
meaning  of  these  words  but  Judas.  Afterward,  v.  18,  He 
spoke  more  openly ;  still  His  words  do  not  seem  to  have 
made  any  special  impression  upon  their  minds.  He,  there- 
fore, soon  after  declares  in  plain  words  that  one  of  them 
should  betray  Him,  (Matt.  xxvi.  21  ;  Mark  xiv.  18 ;  John 
xiii.  21.)  This  at  once  attracts  their  deepest  attention,  and 
they  all  begin  to  ask  Him,  "  Lord,  is  it  I  ?  "  In  reply,  Ho 
says  that  it  is  one  of  the  Twelve,  and  one  who  was  then  eat- 
ing with  Him,  (Matt.  xxvi.  23  ;  Mark  xiv.  20 ;  Luke  xxii.  21.) 
In  this  designation  of  the  traitor,  He  docs  not  seem  to 
refer  to  any  present  act  of  eating,  but  to  the  fact  that  he 
was  sitting  and  partaking  with  Him  at  the  same  table. 
From  these  words,  therefore,  the  apostles  could  not  tell 
which  of  them  was  meant.2  It  is  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
prophecy  (Ps.  xli.  9)  that  He  has  special  reference :  "  Yea, 
mine  own  familiar  friend,  in  whom  I  trusted,  which  did  eat 
of  my  bread,  hath  lifted  up  his  heel  against  me."  (See 
John  xiii.  18.)     This  prophecy  was  now  finding  its  accom- 

>  As  to  the  early  customs  of  the  Jews  in  this  respect,  see  Bynaeus,  i.  204. 
*  Some  would  render  Matt.  xxvi.  23 :  "  He  that  dippeth  his  hand,"  "  lie 
that  has  dipped  his  hand."    So  Meyer,  Couunt. 


464  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LORD. 

plishment  in  one  sitting  and  eating  at  the  same  table  with 
Him.  The  same  truth  is  expressed  by  Luke  :  "  Behold,  the 
hand  of  him  that  betrayeth  me  is  with  me  on  the  table." 
Some,  however,  find  in  the  language  of  Mark,  xiv.  20, 
"  One  of  the  Twelve  that  dippeth  with  me  in  the  dish,"  a 
specific  designation  of  Judas.  "  The  expression  seems  to 
describe  the  traitor  as  particularly  near  to  Christ  at  table, 
and  in  some  peculiar  sense  partaking  with  Him." '  It  is 
possible  that  Judas  may  have  been  sitting  near  to  Jesus, 
and  both  have  dipped  in  the  same  dish ;  but,  if  so,  it  is 
plain  that  the  others  did  not  yet  know  who  was  meant. 

At  this  point,  when  all  had  doubtless  suspended  eating, 
and  their  anxiety  was  at  its  height,  and  all  were  looking 
upon  one  another,  doubting  of  whom  He  spake,  and  ask- 
ing, Is  it  I  ?  Feter  beckons  to  John  to  ask  Him  who  it  was.' 
To  John's  question,  "  Lord,  who  is  it  ? "  which,  probably, 
from  his  position  as  lying  on  Jesus'  breast,  was  unheard  by 
the  others,  He  replied,  "  He  it  is  to  whom  I  shall  give  a 
sop  when  I  have  dipped  it."  '  It  is  not  probable  that  this 
reply  was  heard  by  any  one  but  John.  Taking  a  piece  of 
the  bread  and  dipping  it  in  the  broth,  He  gives  it  to  Judas, 
and  thus  he  is  revealed  as  the  traitor  to  John,  but  to  none 
of  the  others.  It  may  be  that,  on  receiving  the  sop,  Judas 
saw  that  his  treachery  was  known  not  only  to  Jesus  but 
also  to  John  ;  and,  knowing  that  all  longer  concealment  is 
useless,  he  now  asks,  as  the  rest  had  done,  but  mockingly, 
"  Lord,  is  it  I  ?  "  (Matt.  xxvL  25.)    To  his  question  the 

1  Alexander  in  loco  ;  Meyer. 

*  The  text,  as  given  by  Teschendorf,  (John  xiii.  24,)  makes  the  question  to 
have  been  addressed  by  Peter  to  John,  vtvci  ovv  rovrtp  ^.ifiotv  Tlerpos  kou 
Xcyu  axrrtfy  Enre  rts  «mv  ircpt  ov  \cyti.  So  Alford,  Meyer.  The  received 
text  is  defended  by  Stier.  Peter  first  beckons  to  John  to  gain  his  attention, 
and  then  asks  him,  supposing  that  he  may  know,  but  he,  being  ignorant,  asks 
Jesus.  "  Then  Simon  Peter  made  a  sign  to  this  disciple,  and  said  to  him, 
Tell  us  who  it  is  of  whom  He  speaks  ?  "    Norton's  trans. 

9  Tischendorf  and  Alford  read  £«//»,  Meyer  Pa^as. 


DEPARTURE   OF   JUDAS   FROM   PASCHAL   SUPPER.        405 

Lord  replies,  "  Thou  hast  said,"  or  in  other  words,  Thou 
art  the  man. 

There  is  some  difficulty  in  determining  when  Judas 
asked  this  question  and  the  Lord  replied,  from  the  fact  that 
when  the  former  went  out  none  of  the  apostles  seems  to 
have  known  the  cause  of  his  departure,  (John  xiii.  28,  29.) 
Grotius  supposes  it  to  have  been  asked  before  Peter  beck- 
oned to  John,  the  Lord's  reply  not  being  heard  by  him ; 
and  Friedlieb  puts  it  before  the  sign  of  the  sop  given  to 
John.  In  the  general  agitation  and  confusion  the  Lord's 
reply  was  unnoticed.  According  to  Ebrard,  (518,)  the  Lord 
answered  John's  question,  "  Who  is  it  ?  "  openly,  so  that  all 
knew  who  was  meant,  and  then  Judas  asks,  "Is  it  I ? " 
According  to  some,  as  Stier,  all  heard  the  question  of 
Judas,  but  none  specially  marked  it,  as  all  had  asked  the 
same,  and  no  suspicion  seems  to  have  attached  to  him  in 
particular.  The  difficulty,  however,  is  not  with  the  ques- 
tion of  Judas,  which  might  easily  have  passed  unnoticed, 
but  with  the  Lord's  reply,  which,  if  heard,  was  too  direct 
to  have  been  misunderstood.  If  Judas  had  been  thus 
openly  designated  as  the  traitor,  how  could  the  other 
apostles  suppose  that  he  was  sent  out  to  execute  some 
official  commission?  Some,  therefore,  suppose  that  both 
question  and  reply  were  in  a  whisper,  or  very  low  tone  of 
voice,  and  inaudible  to  the  others.  This  is  possible  if  Ju- 
das was  very  near  the  Lord,  perhaps  upon  one  side  as  John 
was  upon  the  other,  as  some  have  inferred  from  Mark  xiv. 
18.  In  this  case  what  was  said  might  easily  have  escaped 
the  ears  of  the  other  apostles ;  and  it  seems  that  Judas 
must  have  been  near  Him  when  he  received  the  sop.  Ac- 
cording to  some,  both  question  and  reply  were  not  by 
words,  but  by  signs.  Others  still  suppose  that  both  were 
heard  and  understood  by  all  present,  but  that  the  apostles, 
looking  forward  to  the  betrayal  as  not  imminent,  did  not 
imagine  that  His  words,  spoken  immediately  after,  *<  That 
20* 


466  THE  LIFE    OP   OUE   LORD. 

thou  doest,  do  quickly,"  (John  xiii.  27-29,)  had  any  refer- 
ence to  the  execution  of  his  treacherous  project.  This 
is  not  intrinsically  improbable.  Notwithstanding  the 
express  terms  in  which  He  had  spoken  of  His  betrayal  and 
death  at  this  Passover,  none  of  the  disciples  seems  to  have 
taken  His  words  literally  ;  and  thus  the  designation  of  Ju- 
das as  the  betrayer  by  no  means  aroused  them  to  a  just 
apprehension  of  the  treachery  he  was  meditating — much 
less  that  it  was  to  take  effect  that  night.1  They  might, 
therefore,  suppose  that  Jesus  had  given  him  some  command 
connected  with  his  official  position  as  the  treasurer  of  the 
band  of  apostles. 

Before  considering  when,  during  the  meal,  the  Lord  in- 
stituted the  eucharist,  it  will  be  necessary  to  have  before 
us  the  order  of  the  paschal  supper.3  1.  The  supper  opens 
with  a  glass  of  wine  mingled  with  water,  preceded  by  a 
blessing,  and  followed  by  washing  of  the  hands.  2.  Giving 
of  thanks,  and  eating  of  the  bitter  herbs.  3.  Bringing  in 
of  the  unleavened  bread,  the  sauce,  the  lamb,  and  the  flesh 
of  the  chagigah,  and  thank  offerings.  4.  Benediction.  The 
bitter  herbs  dipped  in  the  sauce  are  eaten.  5.  The  second 
cup  is  mixed,  and  the  father  explains  to  his  children  the 
origin  of  the  feast.  6.  The  first  part  of  the  Hallel  (Psalms 
cxiii.  and  cxiv.)  is  sung,  prayer  offered,  and  the  second  cup 
drank.  7.  The  father  washes  his  hands,  takes  two  loaves 
of  bread,  breaks  one  and  blesses  it,  takes  a  piece,  and,  wrap- 
ping it  in  the  bitter  herbs,  dips  it  in  the  sauce,  and  eats  it 
with  thanksgiving.  Giving  thanks,  he  then  eats  of  the 
chagigah,  and,  again  giving  thanks,  eats  of  the  lamb.  8.  The 
meal  continues,  each  eating  what  he  pleases,  but  eating 
last  of  the  lamb.  After  this  was  consumed,  no  more  was 
eaten.     9.  He  washes  his  hands  and  takes  the  third  cup, 

1  Licbtenstein,  404 ;   Luthardt,  ii.  233. 

»  For  this,  see  Lightfoot  and  Meyer  on  Matt.  xxri.  26 ;  Friedlieb,  Arch. 
54 ;  Brown,  Antiq.  i.  4f>0. 


ORDER  OP  THE  PASCHAL  SUPPER.  467 

after  giving  thanks.  10.  The  second  part  of  the  Hallel 
(Psalms  cxv.-cxviii.)  is  sung.  11.  The  fourth  cup  is  taken, 
and  sometimes  a  fifth.  12.  The  supper  concludes  with 
singing  the  great  Hallel,  (Psalms  cxx.-cxxvii.) 

Upon  several  of  these  points  there  is  dispute  among  the 
Jewish  writers,  but  the  order,  as  here  given,  is  substantially 
according  to  the  paschal  ritual  of  the  Talmudists.  Whether 
this  order  was  generally  followed  in  our  Saviour's  time,  is 
very  doubtful ;  nor,  if  so,  is  it  by  any  means  certain  that 
He  strictly  followed  it. 

The  order  may  be  most  clearly  seen  in  its  relation  to 
the  evangelical  narratives,  if  we  consider  it  in  connection 
with  the  several  cups  of  wine.  "  Four  cups  of  wine,"  says 
Lightfoot,  "  were  to  be  drank  up  by  every  one."  The 
first  introductory  with  thanksgiving.  This  was  follow- 
ed by  the  bringing  in  of  the  bitter  herbs  and  eating  of 
them ;  the  bringing  in  of  the  bread,  the  sauce,  the  lamb, 
and  the  chagigah ;  the  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  the 
feast ;  and  the  first  part  of  the  Hallel.  The  second  cup, 
followed  by  the  eating  of  the  unleavened  bread,  of  the 
chagigah,  and  of  the  lamb.  The  third  cup,  commonly  call- 
ed the  cop  of  blessing,  and  the  second  part  of  the  Hallel 
sung.  The  fourth  cup  drank.  If  the  great  Hallel  was 
sung,  a  fifth  cup.  All  that  took  place  between  the  first 
and  second  cups  was  introductory  to  the  meal.  The  feast 
proper  began  with  the  second  cup  and  ended  with  the  third. 
Except  the  partial  eating  of  the  bitter  herbs,  the  object  of 
which  was  to  awaken  the  interest  of  the  children  prepara- 
tory ^to  their  instruction,  nothing  was  eaten  before  the 
second,  and  nothing  at  all  was  eaten  after  the  third.  The 
singing  of  the  second  part  of  the  Hallel,  and  the  fourth  oup, 
generally  closed  the  feast. 

If  we  now  turn  to  the  Evangelists,  we  find  that  Luke 
only  (xxii.  17  and  20)  mentions  two  cups  of  wine.  To 
which  of  the  four  customary  cups  of  the  paschal  supper 


468  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LOED. 

shall  these  be  referred  ?  Many  identify  the  first  of  Luke 
with  the  first  of  the  supper.1  But  against  this  are  the 
Lord's  words,  vs.  16  and  18,  that  He  would  no  more  eat  or 
drink  of  the  Passover  till  the  kingdom  of  God  should  come, 
which  imply,  that  He  had  already  eaten  and  drunken,  and 
that  the  paschal  supper  was  over.1  The  words,  however, 
may  mean  no  more  than  that  He  would  partake  of  no 
Passover  after  the  present.  Meyer  insists  that  the  words, 
"  Take  this  and  divide  it  among  yourselves ;  for  I  say  unto 
you,  I  will  not  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine  until  the  king- 
dom of  God  shall  come,"  show  conclusively  that  He  did  not 
Himself  drink  of  the  cup ;  which  abstinence,  if  this  were 
the  first  cup,  is  most  improbable,  and  that  therefore  these 
words,  which  were  later  spoken,  (Matt.  xxvi.  29,)  Luke  has 
erroneously  inserted  here.  But  it  is  by  no  means  certain 
that  the  words,  "  Take  this  and  divide  it  among  yourselves," 
do  exclude  His  own  participation  in  the  cup.  He  greatly 
desired  to  eat  the  Passover  with  them,  and  it  is  not  ques- 
tioned that  He  did  so.  Why  then  should  He  not  partake 
of  the  wine,  which,  though  not  divinely  commanded,  was 
yet  regarded  as  a  regular  part  of  the  supper  ?  Luke's  lan- 
guage does  not  at  all  forbid  the  supposition  that  He  had 
Himself  partaken  of  the  cup  ere  He  gave  it  to  the  dis- 
ciples.* 

The  similarity  of  Matt.  xxvL  29  and  Mark  xiv.  25  with 
Luke  xxii.  18,  may  best  be  explained  by  supposing  that 
the  latter  was  spoken  in  reference  to  the  paschal  supper, 
the  former  in  reference  to  the  eucharistic  supper.  He  kept 
the  Passover  with  His  disciples  according  to  the  law^  and 
thus  fulfilled  it.  He  would  no  more  partake  of  it,  till  it 
should  be  observed  in  its  new  and  higher  form  in  the  king- 
dom of  God.    He  established  the  eucharistic  supper,  and 

1  So  Robinson,  Stier,  Alford. 

»  So  Paulus  in  loco,  who  makes  this  the  fifth  cup. 

•  See  Alford  in  loco. 


INSTITUTION   OP  THE   LOED'S   SUPPER.  469 

henceforth  would  no  more  partake  of  it,  till  all  should  be 
made  new  in  the  kingdom.  It  may  be,  that  in  this  are 
references  to  two  distinct  ordinances  in  the  age  to  come : 
that  of  the  paschal  supper  for  the  Jews,  and  of  the  Lord's 
supper  for  the  Church. 

Some,  however,  make  the  first  cup  of  Luke  to  have  been 
the  third  of  the  paschal  supper.1  The  supper  was  then,  so 
far  as  eating  the  Passover  was  concerned,  fully  over ;  and 
TTia  words,  "  With  desire  have  I  desired  to  eat  this  Passover 
with  you  before  I  suffer,"  refer  to  His  own  supper,  which 
He  was  about  to  establish.  Bucher  (742)  refers  these  words, 
vs.  15-18,  to  the  paschal  supper  just  ended  ;  but  Matt.xxvi. 
29,  and  Mark  xiv.  25,  to  the  eucharistic  supper. 

The  second  cup  of  Luke  (v.  20)  was  that  "  after  sup- 
per," /icra  to  Stnrvryo-at,  (see  also  1  Cor.  xi.  25,)  and  is  the 
same  as  that  mentioned  by  Matt.  xxvi.  27  and  Mark  xiv. 
23.  To  which  of  the  four  cups  of  the  supper  does  this  cor- 
respond ?  Many  refer  it  to  the  third."  Of  this  cnp,  Brown 
remarks  :  "  It  was  emphatically  called  *  the  cup  of  blessing,' 
because,  while  it  stood  before  them,  the  president  did  what 
we  commonly  do  at  the  end  of  a  feast — he  returned  thanks 
to  the  Father  of  all  for  every  temporal  and  spiritual  bless- 
ing, but  especially  that  of  the  Passover."  To  this  some 
suppose  St.  Paul  to  refer,  (1  Cor.  x.  16 :)  "  The  cup  of  bless- 
ing which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood 
of  Christ  ?  "  If  this  be  correct,  then,  after  the  eating  of  the 
paschal  lamb  was  ended,  and  the  law  had  thus  been  fulfilled, 
and  the  supper  finished,  Jesus,  before  proceeding  to  take 
the  cup  after  supper,  the  cup  of  blessing,  takes  bread,  prob- 
ably the  unleavened  bread  upon  the  table,  and  gives  thanks, 
and  declaring  it  to  be  His  body,  gives  them  to  eat.  It  had 
been  a  rule  that  the  paschal  lamb  should  be  the  last  thing 
eaten ;  but  He  now  sets  this  aside,  and  gives  them  the  flesh 

»  Brown,  Antiq.  4(55. 

•  So  Lightfoot,  Lange,  Robinson,  Licbtenstein. 


470  THE   LIFE  OP   OUR  LOED. 

of"  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  He 
now  takes  the  cup,  and  giving  thanks,  gives  it  to  them,  that 
all  might  drink.  By  thus  placing  the  taking  of  the  eucha- 
ristic  bread  immediately  after,  and  in  connection  with,  the 
eating  of  the  paschal  lamb,  we  best  meet  the  statements  of 
Matthew  and  Mark,  that  "  as  they  were  eating,  ttrOiovruv 
avTwv,  He  took  bread,"  <fcc. 

Some,  however,  make  this  to  have  been  the  fourth  cup.1 
The  chief  argument  for  this  is,  that  if  it  was  the  third  cup, 
the  fourth  cup  must  have  been  wholly  omitted,  which  is 
not  probable.  Of  this  fourth  cup,  Brown  remarks  :  "  We 
are  not  particularly  informed  whether  it  immediately  suc- 
ceeded the  third,  or  that  a  certain  interval  was  between 
them.  But  we  know  that  it  was  called  the  cup  of  the  Hal- 
lel,  because  the  president  finished  over  it  the  Hallel  which 
he  had  begun  over  the  second  cup."'  Still,  as  this  obser- 
vance respecting  the  four  cups  of  wine  was  not  command- 
ed in  the  law,  Jesus  might  not  have  regarded  it,  and  have 
sung  the  hymn  after  the  third.  If,  however,  a  cup  was 
taken  after  the  sacramental  cup,  which  is  not  probable,  it 
is  not  mentioned. 

It  has  been  a  point  much  discussed,  whether  Judas  de- 
parted before  or  after  the  institution  of  the  eucharist. 
Matthew,  (xxvi.  25,)  who  alone  relates  his  question,  M  Mas- 
ter, is  it  I  ?  "  and  the  Lord's  reply,  u  Thou  hast  said,"  says 
nothing  of  his  departure,  but  mentions  the  eucharistic  sup- 
per as  taking  place  after  the  question  and  reply.  John, 
(xiii.  26-30,)  who  mentions  his  departure  immediately  after 
receiving  the  sop,  says  nothing  of  the  eucharistic  supper. 
The  Evangelists  Mark  and  Luke  do  not  speak  of  Judas  by 
name.  Where  then,  in  Matthew's  narrative,  shall  we  insert 
his  departure  ?  Probably  between  vs.  25  and  26.  From 
the  expression,  v.  26,  "  And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took 

1  Meyer,  Brown.    Bynaeus  hesitates  between  the  third  and  fourth. 
9  See  Friedlieb,  Arch.  58. 


PRESENCE    OP  JUDAS  AT  THE  LORD'S   SUPPER.  471 

bread,"  <fcc.,  some  infer  the  presence  of  Judas,  the  paschal 
supper  not  being  yet  ended.1  But  the  expression  may  mean 
no  more  than  that,  while  yet  at  the  table,  Jesus  took  bread  ; 
or  if  the  eating  was  even  of  the  lamb,  of  which  all  were 
bound  to  partake,  the  peculiar  position  of  Judas  would 
justify  his  exclusion.  The  argument  from  the  Lord's  words, 
v.  27,  *  Drink  ye  all  of  it,"  as  implying  that  Judas  was  to 
drink  with  the  others,  is  thus  stated  by  Alford :  "  It  is  on 
all  accounts  probable,  and  this  account  confirms  the  prob- 
ability, that  Judas  was  present,  and  partook  of  both  parts 
of  this  first  communion.  The  expressions  are  such  through- 
out as  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  same  persons,  the 
Twelve,  were  present."  But  Matthew  uses  the  same  ex- 
pression :  "  All  ye  shall  be  offended  in  me  this  night," 
(v.  31,  so  vs.  33  and  35,)  when  only  eleven  were  present. 
According  to  many,  this  command  that  all  should  drink,  is 
a  prophetic  warning  against  the  custom  of  the  Romish 
Church  in  withholding  the  cup  from  the  laity.'  Perhaps 
the  right  explanation  may  be  that  given  by  Buxtorf,*  who 
says,  that  it  is  the  law  among  the  Jews,  that  all  who  were 
present  at  the  paschal  supper,  should  drink  of  the  four  cups, 
whether  men  or  women,  adults  or  children ;  and  especially 
of  the  fourth  or  last  cup. 

If  we  turn  to  the  narrative  of  John,  we  read  that,  after 
Jesus  gave  Judas  the  sop,  Satan  entered  into  him,  and  "  he 
went  immediately  out."  Some  have  attempted  to  deter- 
mine, from  the  mention  of  the  "  sop,"  to  what  period  of 
the  meal  this  event  is  to  be  referred.  But  it  is  uncertain 
whether  this  sop,  ^<u/uov,  literally  bit,  or  morsel,  was  of 
flesh  or  bread.*  If  of  bread,  as  is  most  probable,  it  may 
have  been  given  immediately  after  the  second  cup,  when 

»  Bengel ;  ergo  Judas  aderat.  *  Calvin,  Alexander. 

»  Cited  by  Bynaeus,  i.  624. 

*  The  opinion  of  Origen  and  others,  that  this  was  the  bread  consecrated 
to  be  the  Lord's  body,  and  now  given  to  Judas,  is  refuted  by  Augustine. 


472  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB   LOBD. 

each  of  the  company,  wrapping  a  piece  of  unleavened  bread, 
in  bitter  herbs,  dipped  it  in  the  sauce  and  ate  it.  This  was 
before  the  paschal  lamb  was  eaten.  But,  as  both  the  bread 
and  sauce  continued  on  the  table  to  the  end  of  the  meal, 
the  Lord  may  have  given  him  the  sop  at  a  later  period, 
and  no  definite  inference  can  be  drawn  from  this  circum- 
stance. 

If  Judas  went  out  immediately  after  receiving  the  sop, 
and  yet  were  present  at  the  Lord's  supper,  this  supper  must 
have  been  prior  to  the  dipping  of  the  sop.  But  where  in 
John's  narrative  can  it  be  placed  ?  According  to  Stier,  it 
may  find  place  between  vs.  22  and  23.  But  there  is  the 
greatest  intrinsic  improbability,  that  after  Jesus  had  sol- 
emnly announced  to  them,  u  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
that  one  of  you  shall  betray  me,"  and  "  all  were  looking  on 
one  another,  doubting  of  whom  He  spake,"  He  should  have 
proceeded  at  once  to  the  institution  of  this  holy  rite.  It  is 
to  be  noted,  also,  that  in  announcing  the  treachery  of 
Judas,  v.  21,  "He  was  troubled  in  spirit,"  but  that  after 
the  departure  of  Judas,  v.  31,  He  said,  "  Now  is  the  Son 
of  man  glorified,  and  God  is  glorified  in  Him."  There 
seems  to  be  in  John's  narrative  no  possible  place  for  insert- 
ing the  institution  of  the  eucharist  prior  to  the  departure 
of  Judas.  Where,  after  that,  it  is  to  be  placed  is  disputed. 
Some  place  it  between  vs.  30  and  31  ;  some  between  vs.  32 
and  33 ;  some  after  v.  33 ;  some  after  v.  38 ;  and  others 
find  no  place  wholly  satisfactory. 

Some  would  make  a  distinction  between  the  two  parts 
of  the  Lord's  supper,  an  interval  elapsing  between  the  con- 
secration of  the  bread  and  that  of  the  wine.1  Hence  it  is  said 
that  Judas  partook  of  the  bread,  but  went  out  before  the 
distribution  of  the  cup.  There  is  no  sound  basis  for  this 
distinction. 

»  Greswell,  iii.  181.  "  The  bread  was  ordaioed  during  the  supper,  the  use 
of  the  cup  was  prescribed  after  it." 


JESUS  FORETELLS  PETER'S   DENIALS.  473 

Upon  these  grounds,  we  conclude  that  Judas  left  the 
paschal  supper  before  the  Lord  instituted  the  eucharist. 
This  point  has  been  connected  with  questions  respecting 
the  spiritual  efficacy  of  the  sacrament,  into  which  it  would 
be  foreign  to  our  purpose  to  enter.  The  weight  of  author- 
ity down  to  recent  times,  is  in  favor  of  the  view  that  he 
was  present,  and  partook  with  the  other  apostles  of  the 
bread  and  wine.1 


Evening  following  Thursday,  14th  Nisan, 
6th  April. 

After  the  supper  Peter  makes  protestations  of    Luki  xxii.  81-88. 
fidelity,  but  the  Lord  announces  to  him  that  before    John  xiii.  86-88. 
the  cock  should  crow  he  should  deny  Him.     He    Matt.  xxvi.  80-85. 
teaches  the  disciples  of  the  perils  that  await  them,     Mark  xiv.  26-81. 
and  they  bring  to  Him  two  swords.    He  proceeds  to 
address  to  them  words  of  encouragement,  and  an-    John  xiv.  1-81. 
swers  questions  of  Thomas  and  Philip.     He  adds 
the  promise  of  the  Comforter,  and  calling  upon 
them  to  arise  and  depart  with  Him,  He  continues 
His  address  to  them  as  they  stand  around  Him,  and    John  it.,  xvi.,  xvii. 
ends  with  a  prayer. 

Matthew  and  Mark  narrate  the  Lord's  conversation 
with  Peter,  as  if  it  took  place  after  they  had  left  the  supper 
room,  and  were  upon  their  way  to  the  Mount  of  Olives ; 
Luke  and  John,  as  taking  place  before  they  had  left  the 

1  Wichelhaus  (257)  enumerates  as  its  defenders,  Cyprian,  Jerome,  Augus- 
tine, Chrysostom,  the  two  Cyrils,  Theodoret ;  and  later,  Bellarmine,  Baronius, 
Maldonatus,  Gerhard,  Beza,  Bucer,  Lightfoot,  Bengel.  Calvin  is  undecided. 
ProbabiU  tamen  ewe  non  nego  Judam  afuiue.  It  is  affirmed  by  the  Luther- 
ans, but  denied  by  the  Reformed.  Of  the  later  commentators  affirming  it, 
are  McKnight,  Kraffl,  Patritius,  Stier,  Alford ;  denying  it,  Meyer,  Tischen- 
dorf,  Robinson,  Lichtenstein,  Friedlieb,  Bucher,  Ebrard,  Lange,  Wieseler, 
Riggenbach,  Ellicott.  For  an  interesting  discussion  of  the  point,  see  By- 
naeua,  i.  443. 


474  THE   LIFE   OP    OUE   LORD 

room.  Hence,  some  suppose  that  the  conversation  began 
before  they  left  it,  and  was  renewed  by  the  way  ;  and  that 
His  declaration  respecting  the  crowing  of  the  cock  was 
twice  spoken  :  once  as  recorded  by  the  former,  and  once  as 
recorded  by  the  latter.1  Others,  however,  who  agree  with 
these,  that  Jesus  twice  uttered  the  prediction  respecting 
the  denials  of  Peter,  would  identify  Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke.  Luke  does  not  narrate  in  chronological  order.  This 
identification  is  defended  on  internal  grounds,  and  especially 
that  the  Lord's  words  to  Peter,  as  given  by  Luke,  "  When 
thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren,"  seem  plain- 
ly to  point  to  His  words  respecting  all  the  apostles,  as 
given  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  "  All  ye  shall  be  offended 
because  of  me  this  night."*  That  the  prediction  respecting 
Peter's  denials  was  twice  spoken,  is  intrinsically  probable, 
and  wholly  in  accordance  with  Peter's  character.  Jesus 
had  said  (John  xiii.  33)  that  He  must  go  whither  His  dis- 
ciples could  not  follow  Him.  This  leads  Peter  to  ask 
whither  He  was  going,  and  why  he  could  not  now  follow 
Him  ;  and  he  adds,  "  I  will  lay  down  my  life  for  thy  sake." 
Now  the  Lord  declares  to  him,  that  ere  the  cock  crow  he 
shall  deny  Him  thrice.  (At  this  time,  probably,  were 
also  spoken'the  words  given  by  Luke  xxii.  31-34.)  Later, 
perhaps  as  they  were  approaching  the  garden  of  Geth- 
semane,  Jesus,  addressing  them  as  a  body,  declares  that 
"  they  all  shall  be  offended  in  Him  this  night."  This  leads 
Peter  to  repeat  his  protestations  of  fidelity,  and  to  affirm 
that  though  all  others  should  be  offended,  yet  he  would 
not.  The  Lord  therefore  repeats,  and  more  emphatically, 
"  Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  this  day,  even  in  this  night,  before 
the  cock  crow  twice  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice." 

According  to  some,  the  Lord  three  times  predicted 
Peter's  denials,  once  as  given  by  John,  once  by  Luke,  and 

i  Meyer,  Alford,  Oosterzee.  •  See  Bynaeus,  ii.  9. 


THE    TWO    COCK-CROWTNGS.  475 

once  by  Matthew  and  Mark.1  Others  still  make  but  one 
prediction,  which  John  and  Luke  relate  in  its  place,  and 
Matthew  and  Mark  by  retrospection.*  Townsend  makes 
two  predictions,  of  which  one  occurred  at  the  paschal  sup- 
per, and  one  on  the  way  to  the  Mount  of  Olives.* 

The  words  the  u  cock  shall  not  crow,"  may  be  under- 
stood as  referring,  not  to  a  literal  cock,  but  to  that  watch  of 
the  night  known  as  the  "  cock-crowing,"  (see  Mark  xiii. 
35,)  or  the  third  watch,  that  from  12-3  a.  m.  "Within 
the  time  of  cock-crowing,"  says  Lightfoot,  "  the  short  space 
of  time  between  the  first  and  second  crowing."  This  would 
be  equivalent  to  saying,  before  early  dawn  thou  shalt  deny 
me.  But  the  Lord  seems  to  include  the  actual  crowing  of 
the  cock,  as  the  event  shows,  (Mark  xiv.  66-72.)  The 
second  crowing  was  probably  about  3  a.  m.  That  Mark 
should  say,  "  Before  the  cock  crow  twice  thou  shalt  deny 
me  thrice,"  while  the  other  Evangelists  say,  "  Before  the 
cock  crow  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice,"  makes  no  real  dis- 
crepancy. The  latter  speak  generally  of  the  cock-crowing 
as  a  period  of  time  within  which  the  three  denials  should 
take  place;  Mark  more  accurately  says,  that  during  this 
period  the  cock  should  not  crow  twice  ere  the  denials  were 
made.4  The  assertion  that  no  cocks  were  permitted  at 
Jerusalem  has  no  basis.* 

The  allusion  to  the  swords  is  found  only  in  Luke.  Some, 
as  Stier,  make  this  incident  to  have  taken  place  on  the  way 
to  Gethsemane,  and  just  before  the  entrance  into  it.  As, 
however,  it  seems  to  be  directly  connected  with  the  words 
spoken  to  Peter,  it  may  have  occurred  in  the  supper 
room.* 

1  So  Augustine,  Greswell.  »  Newcome,  Robinson,  Riggenbach. 

•  So  substantially  Patritius. 

«  See  Friedlieb,  Archaol.  79 ;  Greswell,  iii.  211. 

•  See  Alford  on  Matt.  xxvi.  84.    "  It  is  certain  that  there  were  cocks  at 
Jerusalem  as  well  as  at  other  places."    Lightfoot. 

•  So  Da  Costa,  Ebrard,  Oosterzee. 


476  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR   LORD. 

After  thus  warning  His  disciples  of  the  twofold  danger 
from  invisible  temptation  and  external  violence,  and  en- 
couraging them  to  trust  in  Him,  and  giving  them  the  prom- 
ise of  the  Comforter,  He  offers  His  farewell  prayer,  the 
hymn  is  sung,  and  the  paschal  solemnity  ended.  We  may, 
however,  connect  this  hymn  with  His  words,  (John  xiv.  31,) 
"  Arise,  let  us  go  hence,"  or  place  it  before  the  discourse. 
Norton  supposes  that  He  rose  from  the  table  to  pray,  but 
continued  for  a  time  His  address.  That  the  discourse  in 
chaps,  xv.  and  xvi.,  with  the  prayer  in  chap.  xvii.,  was  spoken 
in  the  supper  room,  appears  very  clearly  from  chap,  xviii.  1, 
where  it  is  said,  "  When  Jesus  had  spoken  these  words  He 
went  forth — efyXOt — with  His  disciples  over  the  brook 
Cedron,"  which  can  scarcely  refer  to  a  departure  from  any 
other  place,  although  referred  by  some  to  His  going  out  of 
the  city.  It  appears,  also,  from  this,  that  after  His  words, 
"  Arise,  let  us  go  hence,"  no  change  of  place  is  mentioned 
till  the  prayer  is  ended ;  and  from  the  improbability  that 
such  a  discourse  would  be  spoken  by  the  way.  We  con- 
clude, therefore,  that  the  Lord,  after  the  disciples  had  arisen, 
and  while  still  standing  in  the  room,  continued  His  dis- 
course and  ended  it  with  the  prayer.1  Many,  however, 
suppose  it  to  have  been  spoken  on  the  way  to  Gethsemane.* 
Conversation  with  His  disciples  while  journeying  with  them 
was  indeed  not  unusual,  but  that  He  should  deliver  so  long 
a  discourse  at  night,  and  under  these  circumstances,  is  most 
improbable.  Those  who  deny  this  supper  in  John  xiii.  2 
to  be  the  paschal  supper,  but  make  it  one  previous  at  Beth- 
any, place  its  close  at  xiv.  31,  when  Jesus  arose  to  go  to 
Jerusalem.  Bynaeus  finds  three  distinct  discourses:  the 
first,  John  xiii.,  at  the  supper  on  the  evening  of  Wednesday 
preceding  the  paschal  supper;  the  second,  John  xiv.,  on 
Thursday,  just  before  Jesus  left  Bethany  to  go  to  Jerusa- 

»  Meyer,  Stier,  Alford,  Norton,  Tholuck,  fillicott. 
»  Lange,  Da  Costa,  Ebrard,  Patritius. 


JESUS   GOES   TO   GETHSEMANE.  477 

lem  to  the  paschal  supper;  the  third,  John  xv.  rvi.  xvik, 
on  the  night  following  the  paschal  supper. 


Evening  following  Thursday,  14th  Nisan, 
6th  April. 

After  His  prayer  was  ended,  Jesus  went  with  His    John  xviii.  1,  2. 
disciples  over  the  brook  Cedron  to  the  garden  of  Geth-    Matt.  xxvi.  86. 
genuine,  where  He  would  await  the  coming  of  Judas.     Luke  xxii.  89. 
This  apostate,  after  leaving  the  supper  room,  had  gone    Mark  xiv.  82. 
to  the  priests,  and  with  them  made  arrangement  for    John  xviii.  8. 
the  immediate  arrest  of  the  Lord.     Coming  to  the  gar- 
den, Jesus  takes  with  Him  Peter  and  James  and  John,     Matt.  xxvi.  87-46. 
and  retires  with  them  to  a  secluded  spot     Here  He    Mark  xiv.  83-42. 
begins  to  be  heavy  with  sorrow,  and,  leaving  the  three,     Lukk  xxii.  40-46. 
goes  alone  to  pray.     Returning,  He  finds  them  asleep. 
Leaving  them,  He  again  prays,  and  in  His  agony  sweats 
a  bloody  sweat,  but  is  strengthened  by  an  angel.   Again 
returning  to  the  three  disciples,  He  finds  them  asleep. 
He  goes  a  third  time  and  prays,  and  returning,  bids 
them  sleep  on,  but  soon  announces  the  approach  of 
Judas. 

The  hour  when  Jesus  left  the  supper  room  to  go  to 
Gethsemane,  cannot  be  exactly  determined.  Lichtenstein 
(411)  puts  it  at  midnight ;  first,  because  usually  at  this  hour 
the  supper  was  ended  ;  second,  because  if  He  had  left 
earlier,  there  would  have  been  too  great  delay  at  Geth- 
semane. Greswell  puts  it  between  eleven  and  twelve  o'clock; 
Morrison  at  nine  or  ten ;  Fairbairn  at  eight  or  nine  ;  Jar- 
vis  at  eight.  Supposing  the  paschal  supper  to  have  com- 
menced about  6  p.  m.,  or  sundown,  the  several  incidents  of 
the  feast,  and  the  Lord's  discourse  and  prayer,  must  have 
occupied  them  till  near  midnight.  The  only  datum  of  time 
bearing  on  it  is  the  crowing  of  the  cock  (Mark  xiv.  68  and  72,) 
and  this  gives  no  definite  result.     Of  the  situation  of  the 


478  THB  LIFE   OP   OUB  LORD. 

house  where  the  supper  was  eaten,  we  know  nothing.  Gres- 
well  supposes  it  to  have  been  in  the  eastern  part  of  the 
city ;  and,  wherever  it  was,  it  could  not  have  been  very  far 
distant  from  the  garden.1  We  cannot  be  far  wrong  if 
we  suppose  the  Lord  to  have  reached  Gethsemane  about 
midnight. 

The  garden  of  Gethsemane,  "valley  of  oil,"  or  "oil 
press,"  to  which  the  Lord  went,  was  a  place  He  was  accus- 
tomed to  visit,  (John  xviii.  2,)  and  a  little  way  out  of  the 
city.  It  seems  to  have  been  an  olive  orchard,  and  not 
connected  with  any  private  residence.  If,  however,  this 
was  a  private  garden,  still,  as  at  the  feasts  all  the  houses 
and  gardens  were  thrown  open  to  the  public,  Jesus  could 
visit  it  at  this  time  without  hindrance,  or  attracting  to 
Himself  any  special  attention.  Greswell  hints  that  the 
family  of  Lazarus  might  have  had  possessions  there.  From 
a  comparison  of  Luke  xxi.  37  with  xxii.  39,  it  appears  that 
the  Lord  had  spent  some  part  of  the  previous  nights  there, 
perhaps  alone  in  prayer. 

Whether  the  site  of  the  modern  Gethsemane  is  to  be 
identified  with  the  ancient  garden,  is  doubtful.  It  is  first 
mentioned  by  Eusebius  as  at  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and 
afterward  more  definitely  by  Jerome  as  at  the  ibot  of  the 
Mount.8  Several  of  the  most  recent  inquirers  are  disposed 
to  deny  the  identification.  Thomson  (ii.  483)  says :  "  The  posi- 
tion is  too  near  the  city,  and  so  close  to  what  must  have  al- 
ways been  the  great  thoroughfare  eastward,  that  our  Lord 
would  scarcely  have  selected  it  for  retirement  on  that  dan- 
gerous and  dismal  night."  He  finds  a  better  site  several 
hundred  yards  to  the  northeast,  on  the  Mount  of  Olives. 
Barclay  (63)  thinks  it  evident  that  the  present  enclosure,  from 
its  narrow  dimensions,  can  occupy  only  in  part  the  site  of 

1  As  to  the  traditional  site  of  the  "  Upper  Room,"  now  shown  in  the  pil« 
of  buildings  surrounding  the  tomb  of  David,  see  Williams,  H.  C,  ii.  507. 
8  Robinson,  i.  235. 


GARDEN    OF   GETHSEMANE.  479 

the  aucieot  garden,  and  finds  a  better  position  higher  np  in 
the  valley.  Stanley  (415)  is  undecided.  But  whether  the  pres- 
ent garden  occupies  precisely  the  old  site  or  not,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  it  must  be  near  it.  It  lies  a  little  east  of  the  val- 
ley of  Cedron,  at  the  intersection  of  two  paths,  both  lead- 
ing in  different  directions  over  the  Mount  of  Olives.  De- 
scending from  St.  Stephen's  gate  into  the  valley,  and  cross- 
ing a  bridge,  it  is  easily  reached,  being  distant  but  nine  or 
ten  rods  from  the  bridge.  Formerly  it  was  unenclosed, 
but  recently  the  Latins  have  built  a  high  wall  around  it. 
There  are  within  eight  venerable  olive  trees,  undoubtedly 
of  great  age,  their  trunks  much  decayed,  but  branches  flou- 
rishing. "  The  most  venerable  of  their  race  on  the  face  of 
the  earth,"  says  Stanley,  "  their  gnarled  trunks  and  scanty 
foliage  will  always  be  regarded  as  the  most  affecting  of  the 
sacred  memorials  in  or  about  Jerusalem."  The  Greeks, 
envious  of  the  Latins,  have  recently  enclosed  a  piece  of 
ground  a  little  north,  beside  the  Virgin's  tomb,  and  con- 
tend that  this  is  the  true  garden.1 

The  words  of  Jesus  at  the  paschal  supper,  (John  xiii. 
27,)  "  That  thou  doest,  do  quickly,"  forced  Judas  to  do  at 
once  what  he  had  apparently  not  designed  to  do  till  the 
feast  was  over.  Perhaps  he  feared  that  il  the  arrest  was 
was  not  made  the  same  night,  Jesus  would  next  day  leave 
the  city.  Of  the  movements  of  Judas  after  he  left  the  sup- 
per, none  oi  the  Evangelists  give  us  an  account  till  he  re- 
appears at  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  ;  but  we  can  readily 
picture  them  to  ourselves  in  their  outline.  Going  immedi- 
ately to  Caiaphas,  or  to  some  other  leading  member  of  the 
Sanhedrim,  he  informs  him  where  Jesus  is,  and  announces 
that  he  is  ready  to  fulfil  his  compact,  and  at  once  to  make 
the  arrest.  It  was  not,  as  we  have  seen,  the  intention  to 
am isl  Him  during  the  feast,  test  there  should  be  a  popular 
tumult^  (Matt.  xxvi.  5 ;)  but  now  that  an  opportunity  of- 

»  Porter,  i.  177 


480  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

fered  of  seizing  Him  secretly  at  dead  of  night,  when  all 
were  asleep  or  engaged  at  the  paschal  meal,  and  therefore 
without  danger  of  interference  or  uproar,  His  enemies 
could  not  hesitate.  Once  in  their  hands,  the  rest  was  easy. 
A  hasty  trial,  a  prejudged  condemnation,  an  immediate  ex- 
ecution, and  the  hated  Prophet  of  Galilee  was  forever  re- 
moved out  of  their  way.  All  perhaps  might  be  done  by 
the  hour  of  morning  prayer  and  sacrifice.1  With  great 
despatch  all  the  necessary  arrangements  are  made.  Some 
soldiers  the  Sanhedrim  had  under  its  own  direction,  the 
guards  of  the  temple,  commanded  by  u  the  captains  of  the 
temple,"  or,  as  translated  by  Campbell,  "  officers  of  the 
temple  guard,"  (Luke  xxii.  52 ;)  and  to  these  they  added 
some  of  their  own  servants,  armed  with  staves.  But  they 
must  be  attended  by  Roman  soldiers,  in  case  a  disturbance 
should  arise  ;  and  to  this  end  Pilate  was  persuaded  to  place 
at  their  command  the  cohort,  or  a  part  of  it,  under  its  cap- 
tain, x^«*pxos»  that  during  the  feast  was  stationed  at  Fort 
Antonia  for  the  preservation  of  order."  Some  of  the  chief 
priests  and  elders  were  also  themselves  to  be  present,  to  di- 
rect the  proceedings,  and  if  necessary  to  control  the  people." 
The  soldiers,  or  some  portion  of  them,  were  to  be  provided 
with  lanterns  and  torches,  probably  to  search  the  garden 
if  any  attempt  were  made  to  escape.  That  at  this  time  the 
moon  was  at  the  full  presents  no  objection.  "  They  would," 
says  Hackett,  (140,)  "  need  lanterns  and  torches,  even  in  a 
clear  night  and  under  a  brilliant  moon,  because  the  western 
side  of  Olivet  abounds  in  deserted  tombs  and  caves." 
It  is  possible  that  they  thought  to  surprise  Him  asleep.  It 
was  agreed  that  Judas  should  precede  the  others,  and,  ap- 
proaching Him  in  a  friendly  way,  kiss  Him,  and  thus  make 
Him  known.  This  indicates  that  no  resistance  was  antici- 
pated. 

*  Lichtenstein,  414.  »  John  xriii.  3  »nd  12.    See  Mejer  in  loco. 

•  Luke  xxii.  52.    Lichtenstein,  415. 


THE  AGONY  IN  GETHSEMANE.  481 

Of  the  events  at  Gethsemane  prior  to  the  arrival  of 
Judas,  John  says  nothing.  Luke  is  brief,  and,  omitting  the 
choice  of  the  three  apostles  to  accompany  Jesus,  mentions 
but  one  prayer.  On  the  other  hand,  he  alone  mentions  the 
bloody  sweat  and  the  presence  of  the  angel,  (xxil  40-46.) 
In  Matthew  and  Mark  we  find  the  fullest  details. 

Whether  all  the  apostles  entered  the  garden  does  not 
appear ;  but  if  so,  all,  except  Peter,  James,  and  John,  re- 
mained near  the  entrance.  How  long  time  He  was  with 
the  three  in  the  recesses  of  the  garden,  can  but  be  conjec- 
tured, for  the  words  given  by  Matthew,  xxvi.  40,  "  What, 
could  ye  not  watch  with  me  one  hour  ?  "  do  not  imply,  as 
said  by  Greswell,  that  this  was  the  time  actually  occupied 
in  His  prayer,  but  are  a  proverbial  expression,  denoting  a 
brief  interval.  Some  place  the  visit  of  the  angel  between 
the  first  and  second  prayer,  to  strengthen  Him  for  that 
more  terrible  struggle  when  He  sweat  drops  of  blood.1 
Others  make  the  agony  and  bloody  sweat  to  have  taken 
place  before  the  appearance  of  the  angel,  and  its  cause, 
although  narrated  after  it.  That  the  grief  and  heaviness 
were  greatest  during  the  first  prayer,  may  be  inferred 
from  Matthew  and  Mark.  The  language  of  Luke  does  not 
permit  us  to  think  of  sweat  falling  in  large,  heavy  drops 
like  blood,  but  of  sweat  mingled  with  blood." 

The  Lord's  words  to  the  three  apostles,  after  His  last 
return  to  them,  (Matt.  xxvi.  45 ;  so  Mark,)  "  Sleep  on  now, 
and  take  your  rest,"  are  understood  by  some  as  giving  them 
permission  and  opportunity  to  sleep,  and  thus  refresh  them- 
selves to  meet  the  coming  peril.  "  The  obvious  objection 
to  this  explanation  is  that  in  the  same  breath  He  tells  them 
to  awake  ;  but  even  this  is  not  unnatural,  if  taken  as  a  sort 
of  after  thought,  suggested  by  the  sight  or  sound  of  the 

>  Meyer,  Alford. 

•  Meyer,  Alford,  De  Wette.    For  cases  having  points  of  similarity,  sea 
Stroud  on  Death  of  Christ,  85,  and  note  iii. 
21 


482  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

approaching  enemy." '  Others  understand  them  as  ironi. 
cally  spoken.8  Others  still,  as  interrogatively :  "  Sleep  ye 
on  still,  and  take  ye  your  rest  ?  n  *  The  first  explanation 
is  to  be  preferred.  "The  former  words,"  says  EUicott, 
"  were  rather  in  the  accents  of  a  pensive  contemplation — 
the  latter  in  the  tones  of  exhortation  and  command."  It 
was  the  sudden  appearance  of  Judas  and  his  band  that 
caused  the  words,  "  Rise,  let  us  be  going ;  behold,  he  is  at 
hand  that  doth  betray  me,"  and  explain  their  apparent  ab- 
ruptness.* Hackett  (254)  connects  them  with  the  local  posi- 
tion of  the  garden,  from  which  Jesus  could  survey  at  a  glance 
the  entire  length  of  the  eastern  wall,  and  the  slope  of  the 
hill  toward  the  valley.  "  It  is  not  improbable  that  His 
watchful  eyes  at  that  moment  caught  sight  of  Judas  and 
his  accomplices,  as  they  issued  from  one  of  the  eastern 
gates,  or  turned  round  the  northern  or  southern  corner  of 
the  walls,  in  order  to  descend  into  the  valley." 


Evening  following  Thursday,  14th  Nisan, 
6th  April. 

Upon  the  arrival  of  Judas  and  those  with  him,  Je-    John  xviii.  8-12. 
bus,  accompanied  by  the  apostles,  goes  forth  from  the    Matt,  xxvi  47-66. 
garden  to  meet  him.    Judas,  coming  forward  before  the    Mark  xiv.  43-62. 
others,  kisses  Him  as  a  sign  to  them.    Addressing  Ju-    Luke  xxiL  47, 48. 
das,  with  the  words,  "  Betray  est  thou  the  Son  of  man 
with  a  kiss,"  He  advances  to  the  multitude  and  de- 
mands of  them  whom  they  seek  ?     At  their  reply,  *'  Je- 
sus of  Nazareth,"  He  answers,  "I  am  He,"  and  they 
go  backward  and  fall  to  the  ground.     Again  He  asks 
the  same  question,  and  receives  the  same  reply.     He 

1  Alexander.    See  Lichtenstein,  414.  »  Calvin,  Campbell,  Meyer. 

•  Greswell,  iii.  194 ;  Robinson,  Har.  151.  The  former  would  refer  Luke 
xxii.  45,  not  to  the  three  disciples,  but  to  the  eight  whom  He  found  also  asleep 
near  the  entrance  of  the  garden.    There  seems  no  basis  for  this. 

*  See  Mark  xiv.  41.    "  It  is  enough ; "  i.  e.,  "  Ye  have  slept  enough." 


APPB0ACH   OP  JUDAS  WITH   SOLDIERS.  483 

now  requests  that  the  apostles  may  go  free.  As  they  Luke  xxil  49-53. 
proceed  to  take  and  bind  Him,  Peter  smites  a  servant 
of  the  high  priest,  but  the  Lord  heals  the  wound. 
Beholding  their  Master  in  the  power  of  His  enemies, 
all  the  apostles  forsake  Him  and  flee,  and  also  a  young 
man  who  had  followed  Him.  He  reproaches  the  mul- 
titude that  they  had  come  to  arrest  Him  as  a  thief. 

The  time  spent  in  the  garden  was  probably  more  than 
an  hour,  so  that,  if  they  entered  it  about  midnight,  it  was 
between  one  and  two  in  the  morning  when  Judas  came.1 
The  Lord  seems  to  have  met  him  near  the  entrance  of  the 
garden — whether  without  it  or  within  it  is  not  certain.  "  He 
went  forth,"  (John  xviiL  4  ;)  u  out  of  the  garden,"  (Meyer ;) 
"  out  of  the  circle  of  the  disciples,"  (Lange ;)  "  from  the 
shade  of  the  trees  into  the  moonlight,"  (Alford ;)  "  from 
the  bottom  of  the  garden  to  the  front  part  of  it,"  (Tholuck.) 
The  matter  is  unimportant.  According  to  his  arrange- 
ment with  the  priests,  Judas,  seeing  the  Lord  standing 
with  the  disciples,  leaves  those  that  accompanied  him  a 
little  behind,  and,  coming  forward,  salutes  Him  with  the 
usual  salutation,  and  kisses  Him.  To  this  Jesus  replies, 
"  Friend,  wherefore  art  thou  come  ?  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  50.) 
M  Betrayest  thou  the  Son  of  man  with  a  kiss  ?  "  (Luke  xxii. 
48.)  Appalled  at  these  words,  Judas  steps  backward,  and 
Jesus  goes  toward  the  multitude,  who  were  watching  what 
was  taking  place,  and  who,  beholding  Him  advance,  await 
His  approach.  It  may  be  that  Judas  had  advanced  so  far 
before  his  companions  that  he  was  not  seen  by  them  to  kiss 
the  Lord,  and  that  they  were  still  awaiting  the  sign.  Ho 
asks,  M  Whom  seek  ye  ?  "  They  reply,  "  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth." His  words,  "  I  am  He,"  spoken  with  the  majesty 
that  became  the  Son  of  God,  so  overawed  them  that  they 
went  backward  and  fell  to  the  ground.    After  a  like  ques- 

>  Jones,  Notes,  331,  makes  the  arrest  to  have  been  about  10  p.m.,  and 
Jesus  taken  to  Caiaphas  about  11  p.  u.    It  must  have  been  later  than  this. 


484  THE   LIFE   OF   OUK  LORD. 

tion  and  reply,  He  requests  them  to  let  the  apostles  go 
free,  thus  implying  his  own  willingness  to  be  taken  ;  and 
they,  thus  emboldened,  now  lay  hands  upon  Him.  At  this 
moment  Peter  draws  Ins  sword  and  smites  one  of  the  band. 
Jesus  orders  him  J;o  put  up  his  sword,  and  declares  that  He 
gives  Himself  up  to  them  voluntarily,  and  that,  if  He  need- 
ed help,  His  Father  would  send  Him  legions  of  angels. 
The  healing  of  the  servant's  ear  is  mentioned  only  by  Luke, 
(xxii.  51.)  He  now  addresses  a  few  words  to  the  chief  priests 
and  captains  and  elders,  who  had  probably  to  this  time  been 
standing  behind  the  soldiers,  and  now  came  forward ;  and, 
as  He  finished,  the  apostles,  seeing  Him  wholly  in  the  pow- 
er of  His  enemies,  forsook  Him  and  fled.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear that  there  was  any  design  to  arrest  them.  If  their 
Master  was  removed  out  of  the  way,  the  Sanhedrim  doubt- 
less thought  that  they  would  soon  sink  into  obscurity. 
There  was  no  attempt  to  seize  them,  and  in  the  darkness 
and  confusion  they  could  easily  escape.  Peter  and  John, 
however,  continued  lurking  near  by,  watching  the  progress 
of  events.  The  incident  of  the  young  man  "  having  a  linen 
cloth  cast  about  his  naked  body,"  is  mentioned  only  by 
Mark,  (xiv.  51,  52.)  From  the  linen  cloth  or  cloak,  Light- 
foot  infers  that  he  was  a  religious  ascetic,  and  not  a  disci- 
ple of  Jesus,  but  a  casual  looker-on.  Lichtenstein  (395)  makes 
him  to  have  been  the  Evangelist  Mark  himself,  and  son  of 
the  man  at  whose  house  Jesus  ate  the  paschal  supper; 
others,  John  ;  others,  James  the  Just.1 

The  circumstances  connected  with  the  arrest  are  put  by 
some  in  another  order.  The  incidents  narrated  by  John, 
(xviii.  4-9,)  the  going  forth  of  Jesus  to  the  multitude ;  His 
questions  to  them ;  and  their  prostration ;  took  place  before 
Judas  approached  Him  to  kiss  Him.*     According  to  Stier, 

1  See  Alexander  in  loco.    The  matter  is  elaborately  discussed  by  Bynaeus, 
ii.  228. 

*  So  Robinson,  Alford,  Stier. 


JESUS  TAKEN   TO    ANNAS   FIRST.  485 

(vii.  277,)  Jndas  was  with  the  band,  but  stood  irresolute  as 
the  Lord  came  to  meet  them.  He  with  the  others  fell  to  the 
ground,  but,  reviving,  goes  forward  to  give  the  kiss.  But 
why  give  the  kiss  to  make  Jesus  known,  when  He  already 
avowedly  stood  before  them  ?  It  was  not  needed  as  a  sign. 
Stier  affirms  that  it  was  given  in  "the  devilish  spirit  to 
maintain  his  consistency  and  redeem  his  word."  This  may 
be  so,  but  the  order  before  given  is  more  probable.1 


Friday  Morning,  15th  Nisan,  7th  April. 

From  the  garden  Jesus  is  taken  first  to  the  house  John  xviii.  18-15. 
of  Annas,  and,  after  a  brief  delay  here,  to  the  palace 

of  Caiaphas,  the  high  priest ;  Peter  and  John  follow-  Matt.  xxvi.  57,  58. 

ing  Him.    Here,  whilst  the  council  is  assembling,  He  Mark  xiv.  53,  64. 

is  subjected  to  preliminary  examination  by  Caiaphas  Luke  xxii.  54,  55. 

respecting  His  disciples  and  doctrine.     The  council  John  xviii.  19-23. 

haring  assembled,  He  is  put  on  trial.     As  the  wit-  Matt.  xxvi.  59-66. 

nesses  disagree  and  no  charge  can  be  proved  against  Mark  xiv.  65-64. 
Him,  He  is  adjured  by  Caiaphas  to  tell  whether  He 

be  the  Christ   Upon  His  confession  He  is  condemned  Matt.  xxvi.  69-75. 

as  guilty  of  blasphemy.     During  this  period,  Peter,  Mark  xiv.  66-72. 

who  had  followed  Him  with  John  to  the  high  priest's  Ldkk  xxii.  66-62. 

palace,  there  denies  Him,  and,  reminded  of  His  words  John  xviii  16-18. 
by  the  crowing  of  the  cock,  goes  out  to  weep.  "         25-27. 

That  Jesus  was  led  from  Gethsemane  to  Annas  first, 
and  then  sent  by  Annas  to  Caiaphas,  is  mentioned  only  by 
John.  According  to  Matthew,  He  was  led  to  Caiaphas, 
the  high  priest,  and  in  his  palace,  before  the  priests  and 
scribes  and  elders,  the  trial  took  place.  Mark  and  Luke 
say  merely  that  He  was  led  away  to  the  high  priest,  with- 
out naming  him.  The  preliminary  examination  mentioned 
by  John,  they  all  pass  over  in  silence.     Our  first  inquiry 

1  So  Lichtenstein,  Krafft,  Ebrard,  Luthardt,  Meyer,  Patritius. 


486  THE  LIFE   OP   OUK  LORD. 

therefore  concerns  this  preliminary  examination,  before 
whom  it  was  held,  and  its  relations  to  the  formal  trial. 

The  Jews  led  Jesus  away  to  Annas  first.  Various 
causes  have  been  assigned  why  He  should  have  been  taken 
to  Annas,  as  that  his  house  was  near  at  hand,  and  here  the 
Lord  might  be  kept  safely  till  the  council  assembled  ;  that 
he  was  president  or  vice-president  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and 
so  had  a  legal  right  to  examine  Him ;  that  he  occupied  the 
same  palace  with  Caiaphas ;  that  he  was  father-in-law  to 
Caiaphas,  and  therefore  this  mark  of  respect  was  shown 
him.  To  this  latter  relationship  the  Evangelist  gives  special 
emphasis,  (v.  13,)  and  seems  to  make  it  the  cause  why  Je- 
sus was  led  before  him.1  It  is  apparent  from  Josephus,1  as 
well  as  from  the  Evangelists,  that  he  was  for  many  years  a 
man  of  great  influence,  and  virtually  the  ecclesiastical  head 
of  the  nation.  It  is  in  this  personal  reputation  and  author- 
ity, that  we  find  the  explanation  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  was 
taken  to  him  first.  As  the  former  high  priest,  as  father-in- 
law  of  Caiaphas,  as  an  experienced  and  able  counsellor,  a 
wish  on  his  part  to  see  so  noted  a  prisoner,  aside  from 
other  reasons,  would  sufficiently  explain  why  the  Lord  was 
led  before  him. 

But  all  this  still  leaves  undetermined  the  point  whether 
the  Lord  was  examined  by  Annas.  If  so,  he  is  designated 
by  John  as  high  priest,  (v.  19:)  "  The  high  priest  then  asked 
Jesus,"  &c.  But  does  he  so  designate  him,  or  is  Caiaphas 
meant  ?  That  Annas  is  so  called  by  Luke  (iii.  2,  Acts  iv. 
6)  is  not  conclusive,  for  the  question  turns  not  on  this  fact, 
but '  on  John's  meaning.  Nowhere  in  his  Gospel  does  this 
Evangelist  call  Annas  the  high  priest.  This  office  was  held 
by  Caiaphas,  (xi.  49  and  51.)  That  a  distinction,  based 
upon  official  position,  is  taken  in  the  passage  before  us  be- 
tween Annas  and  Caiaphas,  is  apparent.  Of  the  latter  it  is 
expressly  said  that  he  was  high  priest,  (see  also  v.  24  ;)  of 

1  Ellicott,  333, 1.  »  Antiq.,  20.  9.  L 


JESUS  TAKEN  TO   ANNAS.  487 

the  former  that  he  was  father-in-law  of  the  high  priest. 
When  he  then,  immediately  after,  speaks  of  the  palace  of 
the  high  priest,  whose  palace  is  meant  ?  Obviously  that 
of  Caiaphas.  This  seems  the  only  natural  and  unforced  in- 
terpretation of  the  language.  The  remark  of  Neander,  re- 
peated by  Stier,  that,  by  being  styled  the  "  high  priest  of 
that  ytar?  Caiaphas  is  not  designated  as  the  high  priest, 
and  is  distinguished  from  other  high  priests,  has  little 
force. 

The  argument  that  tends  most  strongly  to  show  that 
Annas  is  called  high  priest,  is  drawn  from  the  statement 
(v.  15)  that  Simon  Peter  was  following  Jesus  with  John, 
and  that  they  went  in  with  Him  into  the  palace  of  the  high 
priest.  As  they  led  Him  to  Annas  first,  it  is  inferred  that 
the  disciples  followed  Him  thither,  and  that  what  is  said  in 
vs.  15-23  must  be  the  account  of  what  there  took  place.1 
But  if  this  visit  to  Annas  was  brie£  and  had  no  important 
bearing  on  what  followed ;  and  was  to  gratify  his  curiosity, 
or  to  get  his  advice,  or  to  find  a  place  of  temporary  secur- 
ity, we  can  readily  see  why  it  is  so  briefly  mentioned,  and 
why  the  disciples  are  not  said  to  have  entered  his  palace. 

If  we  turn  to  the  examination  itself,  all  the  circum- 
stances indicate  that  it  was  before  Caiaphas,  the  legal  high 
priest :  the  mention  of  his  palace,  the  character  of  his  ques- 
tions, the  fact  that  the  Lord  answers  him,  and  the  conduct 
of  the  officer.  But  does  not  the  statement  (v.  24)  that 
"  Annas  sent  (a7r«or€iAcv)  Him  bound  unto  Caiaphas,  the 
high  priest,"  show  that  this  sending  was  after  the  examina- 
tion previously  mentioned?  (vs.  19-23.)  All  here  depends 
upon  the  point  whether  a7recrrciA€v  can  be  translated,  as  in 
our  version,  "  had  sent." 8     It  is  easily  comprehensible  that 

•  So  Luthardt,  ii.  885. 

*  Winer  (Gram.  246)  leaves  the  point  undecided ;  so  Buttman,  New  Test. 
Oram.  173.  In  favor  of  this  translation,  Tholuck,  De  Wette,  Kraflt,  Robin- 
son, Norton,  Greswell,  Campbell. 


488  THE  LIFE   OF  OUB  LORD. 

John,  not  having  explicitly  mentioned  this  sending  to  Caia- 
phas,  should  give  this  supplementary  statement.  Still,  some 
find  the  key  to  this  verse  in  the  word  "  bound,"  as  refer- 
ring back  to  vs.  22,  23.  Annas  had  sent  Him  to  Caiaphas 
bound ;  yet  the  high  priest  permits  Him,  thus  helpless,  to  be 
smitten  in  his  presence.  In  this  way  the  statement  comes 
in  parenthetically,  and  in  its  right  place.  "  The  fact  is  men- 
tioned here  because  this  indignity  and  prejudgment  of  the 
case  of  Jesus  led  to,  and  countenanced,  the  indignity  just 
before  mentioned."  '  Perhaps  the  more  natural  position 
of  v.  24  would  be  after  v.  13,  where  some  would  place  it. 
If,  however,  we  translate  it,  "Annas  sent  Him  bound  to 
Caiaphas,"  the  difficulty  of  its  present  position  is  not  thereby 
removed.  Why  is  this  fact  mentioned  here  ?  No  account 
is  given  of  what  took  place  before  Caiaphas,  but  v.  25  re- 
sumes the  narrative  of  Peter's  denials  in  the  palace  of  the 
high  priest,  and  v.  28  simply  announces  that  they  led  Jesus 
from  Caiaphas  to  the  hall  of  judgment.  In  whatever  point 
of  view  we  regard  it,  the  position  of  v.  24  is  peculiar ;  but 
its  reference  to  what  had  taken  place  seems  best  to  explain 
the  narrative. 

We  reach  the  same  result  by  comparing  the  statements 
of  the  Evangelists  respecting  the  place  where  Peter  was 
when  he  thrice  denied  the  Lord.  It  was,  according  to 
John,  (xviii.  15,)  in  the  palace  of  the  high  priest,  or,  more 
properly,  in  the  court — avkq — where  a  fire  of  coals  had 
been  made,  (vs.  18  and  25.)  Mark  (xiv.  54  and  67)  men- 
tions the  same  court  and  fire ;  and  so  Luke,  (xxii.  55,  56.) 
From  Matthew  (xxvi.  57)  it  appears  that  this  palace  was 
that  of  Caiaphas,  and  from  vs.  69-75  that  here  Peter  made 
the  denials.  If,  then,  all  these  denials  were  made  in  the 
same  court,  and  this  was  that  of  Annas,  they  must  have 
been  made  during  the  preliminary  examination,  and  before 

1  Norton,  ii.  463.    See  also  Bengel  in  loco. 


ANNAS   SENDS   JESUS  TO   CAIAPHAS.  489 

Jesus  was  led  to  Caiaphas.  But  this  is  in  opposition  to 
Matthew,  who  makes  the  court  to  have  been  that  of  Caia- 
phas. Hence  some !  find  an  irreconcilable  discrepancy  be- 
tween Matthew  and  John.  To  avoid  this  difficulty,  many 
would  make  this  palace,  which  in  all  probability  was  the 
high  priest's  official  residence,  to  have  been  occupied  by 
Annas  and  Caiaphas  in  common.  The  first  examination 
may  thus  have  been  before  Annas  in  one  apartment,  and 
the  formal  trial  before  Caiaphas  and  the  Sanhedrim  in  an- 
other— Peter  remaining  all  the  while  in  the  court.9  In 
this  supposition  of  a  common  residence,  there  is  nothing  at 
all  improbable  in  itself.  Still,  the  statement  that  He  was 
taken  to  Annas  first,  and  then  sent  by  Annas  to  Caiaphas 
bound,  seems  to  imply  more  than  that  He  was  taken  to 
their  joint  residence,  and  then  transferred  from  one  apart- 
ment to  another.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  they  had 
distinct  palaces,  and  that  what  John  relates  (xviii.  15-27) 
took  place  in  that  of  Caiaphas. 

The  order  of  those '  who  suppose  that  Annas  and  Caia- 
phas occupied  different  palaces,  and  yet  that  the  first  ex- 
amination was  before  Annas,  and  that  the  denials  of  Peter 
were  during  this  examination,  and  before  Jesus  was  sent  to 
Caiaphas,  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  statements  of  Mat- 
thew; nor  can  we  accept  their  solution  that  these  state- 
ments are  corrected  by  John,  who  saw  their  inaccuracy. 
That,  after  Jesus  was  led  to  Caiaphas,  Peter  did  not  remain 
behind  and  complete  his  denials,  appears  plainly  from  Luke 
xxii.  61,  where  it  is  said  that  the  Lord  turned  and  looked 
upon  him  after  the  third  denial.  Jesus  must  then  have 
remained  in  the  court  of  Annas  till  the  second  cock-crow- 
ing.    This  would  put  the  sending  to  Caiaphas,  and  subse- 


"  Meyer,  Bleek. 

»  SoStier,  Langc,  Ebrard,  Liechtenstein,  Alford,  Ellicoti 
»  So  Olshausen,  Wieseler. 
21* 


490  THE  LIFE   OF   OtJE  LORD. 

quent  proceedings,  much  later  than  the  tenor  of  the  narra- 
tive warrants. 

The  assertion  of  many,  that  Luke,  who  does  not  men- 
tion his  name,  intends  to  designate  Annas  as  the  high 
priest,  (xxii.  54,)  has  no  sufficient  basis.  That  he  does 
(iii.  2)  speak  of  both  Annas  and  Caiaphas  as  high  priests, 
and  in  Acts  (iv.  6)  names  Caiaphas  without  any  official  title, 
but  calls  Annas  the  high  priest,  does  not  show  that  Annas 
is  here  meant.  There  is  no  question  that  Caiaphas  was  the 
legal  and  acting  high  priest.  As  such  he  is  designated  by 
Matthew  and  Mark,  and  as  such  he  takes  the  lead  in  all 
the  judicial  proceedings  against  Jesus.  Of  these  facts 
Luke  could  not  be  ignorant.  He  himself  names  Caiaphas 
high  priest.  The  presumption  is  therefore  very  strong 
that  he  alludes  to  him  here,  and  that  all  he  relates  (vs.  54- 
65)  was  in  his  palace. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  Jesus  was  sent  to  Annas  first, 
but  not  examined  by  him ;  that  He  was  soon  sent  from  An- 
nas to  Caiaphas ;  that  the  two  had  distinct  palaces ;  that 
the  examination  (John  xviii.  19-23)  was  before  Caiaphas; 
that  to  this  palace  Peter  followed ;  that  here  were  all  his 
denials  ;  and  that  thus  the  Evangelists  are  harmonized.1 

We  may  then  arrange  these  events  in  the  following 
order : — Jesus,  being  arrested,  is  led  first  to  Annas.  Here 
He  remains  but  a  short  period,  and  is  sent  by  Annas  to 
Caiaphas,  in  whose  palace  the  trial  was  to  take  place.*  Be- 
cause this  sending  to  Annas  had  no  important  bearings  on 
the  trial  itself,  it  is  passed  over  by  the  Synoptists.  But  as 
some  interval  necessarily  elapsed  ere  all  the  members  of 
the  Sanhedrim  could  be  assembled,  Caiaphas  takes  upon 
himself  to  ask  Him  some  questions  respecting  His  disciples 

1  Lightfoot,  Lardner,  Bynaeus,  Grotius,  Whitby,  Newcome,  Norton,  Rob- 
inson, Greswell,  KrafFt,  Friedlieb,  Da  Costa. 

2  As  to  the  traditionary  site  of  the  palace  of  Caiaphas,  see  Porter,  L  178; 
Barclay,  171 ;  Raumer,  25S,  note  21. 


FIEST  EXAMINATION   OP  JESUS.  491 

and  doctrines.  There  is  nothing  here  like  a  regular  judi- 
cial examination  ;  the  judges  are  not  present,  and  no  wit- 
nesses are  called  or  testify.  Still,  as  Caiaphas  was  the  high 
priest,  Jesus  pays  him  the  respect  which  his  office  demand- 
ed, and  answers  him.  That  his  object  was  evil  is  apparent. 
He  would  learn  from  Him  how  many,  and  who,  had  become 
His  disciples,  that  he  might  hereafter  use  this  knowledge 
against  them.  But  upon  this  point  Jesus  kept  perfect 
silence.  In  regard  to  His  doctrine  He  had  always  and 
everywhere  spoken  openly.  Let  Caiaphas  ask  those  who 
had  heard  Him  in  the  synagogues  and  temple,  and  let  them 
testify.  An  officer  present,  declaring  that  this  answer  is  in- 
sulting to  the  high  priest,  smites  Him  with  the  palm  of  his 
hand.  Caiaphas  seems  now  to  have  withdrawn,  probably 
to  meet  the  Sanhedrim,  and  to  have  left  Jesus  to  the  mock- 
ery and  abuse  of  His  captors. 

Let  us  now  consider  more  fully  the  three  denials  of  Pe- 
ter. After  the  arrest,  he,  with  "  another  disciple,"  followed 
Jesus  to  the  high  priest's  palace.  It  is  disputed  who  this 
other  disciple  was.  Most  regard  it  as  a  modest  designa- 
tion of  John  himself;  others,  of  some  unknown  disciple. 
A.  Clarke  approves  Grottos'  conjecture  that  it  was  the 
person  at  whose  house  Jesus  had  supped.  Some  have 
thought  of  Judas.  This  disciple,  being  known  unto  the 
high  priest,  was  permitted  to  enter  with  those  who  were 
leading  Jesus,  but  Peter  was  shut  out.  Perceiving  this,  he 
tarns  back,  and  persuades  the  woman  that  kept  the  door  to 
admit  Peter  also.  They  seem  then,  or  soon  after,  to  have 
separated,  as  no  mention  is  afterward  made  of  the  other 
disciple.  Either  before  or  soon  after  Peter's  entrance,  the 
officer  and  soldiers  made  a  fire  of  coals  in  the  court. 

To  understand  the  details  that  follow,  it  is  necessary  to 
have  in  mind  the  ordinary  construction  of  oriental  houses, 
which  is  thus  described  by  Robinson : ■  "  An  oriental  house 
>  Har.  225. 


492  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

is  usually  built  around  a  quadrangular  interior  court,  into 
which  there  is  a  passage  (sometimes  arched)  through  the 
front  part  of  the  house,  closed  next  the  street  by  a  heavy 
folding  gate,  with  a  smaller  wicket  for  single  persons,  kept 
by  a  porter.  In  the  text  the  interior  court,  often  paved 
and  flagged,  and  open  to  the  sky,  is  the  avX^,  (translated 
'  palace,'  '  hall,'  and  4  court,')  where  the  attendants  made  a 
fire ;  and  the  passage  beneath  the  front  of  the  house,  from 
the  street  to  this  court,  is  the  irpoavXwv  or  irv\a>v,  (both 
translated  '  porch.')  The  place  where  Jesus  stood  before 
the  high  priest  may  have  been  an  open  room  or  place  of 
audience  on  the  ground  floor,  in  the  rear  or  on  one  side  of 
the  court ;  such  rooms,  open  in  front,  being  customary." 
In  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  (L  838,)  the  writer  speaks  of 
"  an  apartment  called  makad,  open  in  front  to  the  court, 
with  two  or  more  arches  and  a  railing ;  and  a  pillar  to  sup- 
port the  wall  above.  It  was  in  a  chamber  of  this  kind, 
probably  one  of  the  largest  size  to  be  found  in  a  palace, 
that  our  Lord  was  arraigned  before  the  high  priest,  at  the 
time  when  the  denial  of  Him  by  St.  Peter  took  place." 
That  the  trial  of  Jesus  actually  occurred  in  such  an  apart- 
ment seems  plain  from  Matt.  xxvi.  69,  where  Peter  is  spo- 
ken of  as  sitting  "  without  in  the  palace,"  c£u> — tv  tq  avAp,  or 
court,  implying  that  the  Lord  and  His  judges  were  in  an 
inner  room.1  Mark  (xiv.  66)  speaks  of  Peter  as  "  beneath 
in  the  palace,"  «v  rrj  av\rj  Kara>,  "in  the  court  below." 
"  Not  in  the  lower  story  of  the  house  or  palace,"  says  Al- 
exander, "  as  the  English  version  seems  to  mean,  but  in  the 
open  space  around  which  it  was  built,  and  which  was  lower 
than  the  floor  of  the  surrounding  rooms." 

For  convenient  inspection,  we  give  the  denials  of  Peter 
in  tabular  form : 

»  See  Meyer  in  loea 


denials  of  peteb. 
Fiest  Denial. 


493 


Matthew. 

Marx. 

Lttxz. 

John. 

Questioner 

Time 

Maid  servant 
Indefinite. 

Court. 

"  Thou  also  wast 

with  Jesus  of 

Galilee." 

■  I   know    not 
what  thou  say- 
est" 

Maid  servant 
Indefinite. 

By  fire  in  court 
"  Thou  also  wast 
with  Jesus  of 
Nazareth." 

"I  know    not 
neither  under- 
stand I,  what 
thou  sayest" 

A  certain  maid. 
Indefinite. 

Byfire  in  court 
u  This  man  was 
also  with  Him." 

u  Woman,       I 
know      Him 
not" 

Portress. 

Soon   after   en- 

Place  

tering. 
Court. 

Question 

Denial 

"  Art  thou  not 
also  one  of  this 
man's  disci- 
ples ?  " 

a I  am  not" 

Second  Denial. 


QmiUmm 

Time 

Place 

Qu.-stiou. . 


Another  maid. 
Indefinite. 

Porch. 

"  This  was  also 
with  Jesus  of 
Nazareth." 


With  an  oath,    He   denied    it 
44 1     do     not      again, 
know        the 


little 


The  maid.  i  Another. 

Indefinite.  |  After  a 

•     while. 
Porch.  Indefinite. 

"  This  is  one  of    "Thou  art  also 
them."  of  them." 


They. 
Indefinite. 

By  the  fire. 

"Art  not  thou 
also  one  of  His 
disciples  ?  " 

"  I  am  not" 


Thied  Denial. 


Questioner 

They  that  stood 
by. 

After  a  while. 

Indefinite. 

"  Surely  thou 
art  also  one  of 
them,  for  thy 
speech  betray  - 
eth  thee." 

With     cursing 
and  swearing, 
"  I  know  not 
the  man." 

They  that  stood 
by. 

A  little  after. 

Indefinite. 

M  Surely  thou 
art  one  of 
them,  for  thou 
art  a  Galilean, 
and  thy  speech 
agreetn  there- 
to." 

"  I  know  not 
the  man  of 
whom  you 
speak." 

Another. 

About  the  space 
of  an  hour 
after. 

Indefinite. 

"  Of  a  truth 
this  fellow  also 
was  with  Him, 
for  he  is  a  Gal- 
ilean." 

"  Man,  I  know 
not  what  thou 
sayest" 

A  servant  of  the 
high  priest 
kinsman  of 
Malchus. 

Indefinite. 

Place  

Indefinite. 

Question 

Denial.... 

"  Did  I  not  see 
thee     in     the 
garden      with 
Himf  " 

Peter  then  de- 
nied again. 

494  THE   LIFE   OF   OUB   LORD. 

In  regard  to  the  first  denial  there  are  no  special  difficul- 
ties. How  soon  after  Peter  entered  the  court  he  was  ad- 
dressed by  the  damsel  who  kept  the  door,  or  portress, 
does  not  appear.  It  is  probable  that,  as  her  attention  had 
been  specially  drawn  to  him  when  he  was  admitted,  she 
watched  him  as  he  stood  by  the  fire ;  and  that  something  in 
his  appearance  or  conduct  may  have  excited  her  suspicions. 
The  attention  of  all  who  heard  her  must  now  have  been 
directed  to  Peter,  but  no  one  seems  to  have  joined  her  in 
her  accusation. 

In  regard  to  the  second  denial,  there  are  several  appar- 
ent discrepancies  both  as  to  the  persons  and  the  place. 
The  former  are  described  as  "  another  maid,"  "  the  (same) 
maid,"  "  another  person,"  u  they."  Bat  in  the  several  nar- 
ratives it  is  plain  that  it  is  not  deemed  important  to  specify 
who  addressed  Peter ;  the  important  point  is  his  denials. 
The  matter  may  very  naturally  be  thus  arranged :  The  dam- 
sel who  first  accused  him,  silenced  for  the  time,  but  not 
satisfied  with  his  denial,  speaks  to  another  maid  servant, 
and  points  out  Peter  to  her  as  one  whom  she  knew,  or  be- 
lieved, to  be  a  disciple.  Seeing  him  soon  after  in  the  porch, 
for,  in  the  agitation  of  his  spirit,  he  cannot  keep  still,  she 
renews  the  charge  that  he  is  a  disciple ;  and  the  other  maid 
repeats  it.  Others,  hearing  the  girls,  also  join  with  them, 
perhaps  dimly  remembering  his  person,  or  now  noting 
something  peculiar  in  his  manner.  That,  under  the  circum- 
stances and  in  the  excitement  of  the  moment,  such  an  ac- 
cusation, once  raised,  should  be  echoed  by  many,  is  what 
we  should  expect.  During  the  confusion  of  this  question- 
ing, Peter  returns  again  to  the  fire,  where  most  were  stand- 
ing, and  there  repeats  with  an  oath  his  denial.  There  is  no 
necessity  for  transposing,  with  Ellicott,  the  first  and  second 
denials  as  given  by  John. 

The  second  denial,  so  energetically  made,  seems  to  have 
finally  silenced  the  women,  and  there  is  no  repetition  of  the 


THE  DENIALS  OF  PETER.  495 

charge  for  about  the  space  of  an  hour.  During  this  inter- 
val, Peter,  perhaps  the  better  to  allay  suspicion,  joins  in 
the  conversation,  and  is  recognized  as  a  Galilean  by  his 
manner  of  speech.1  As  most  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
were  Galileans,  this  again  draws  attention  to  him.  Perhaps 
the  kinsman  of  Malchus,  who  had  been  with  the  multitude, 
and  had  seen  him  in  the  garden,  and  now  remembers  his 
person,  begins  the  outcry,  and  the  bystanders  join  with 
him ;  and  the  more  that  his  very  denials  betray  his  Galilean 
birth.  The  charge,  thus  repeated  by  so  many,  and  upon 
such  apparently  good  grounds,  threatens  immediate  danger ; 
and  Peter  therefore  denies  it  with  the  utmost  vehemence, 
with  oaths  and  cursings. 

The  exact  relations  in  which  the  denials  of  Peter  stand 
in  order  of  time  to  the  examination  and  trial  of  the  Lord, 
it  is  impossible  to  determine.  Probably  the  first  denial, 
and  perhaps  also  the  second— for  there  seems  to  have  been 
but  a  short  interval  between  them,  (Luke  xxii.  58) — may 
have  been  during  the  preliminary  examination  before  Caia- 
phas, or  at  least  before  the  assembling  of  the  Sanhedrim ; 
and  the  third  during  the  trial  or  at  its  close.  The  incident 
recorded  by  Luke,  (xxii.  61,)  that  immediately  after  the 
third  denial,  as  the  cock  crew,  the  Lord  turned  and  looked 
upon  Peter,  is  supposed  by  some  to  show  that  Jesus  was 
now  passing  from  one  apartment  to  another,  and,  as  He 
passes,  turns  and  looks  upon  Peter,  who  was  standing  near 
by.  But,  if  so,  when  was  this  ?  Those  who  put  the  pre- 
liminary examination  before  Annas,  and  Peter's  denials  there, 
make  this  the  departure  to  Caiaphas  after  the  examination  ; 
others,  His  departure  after  the  trial  from  Caiaphas  to  Pi- 
late ;  others  still,  the  change  from  the  apartment  in  Caia- 
phas' palace,  where  He  had  been  examined,  to  that  in  which 
He  was  to  be  tried.     But  it  is  by  no  means  necessary  to 

*  As  to  the  pronunciation  of  the  Galileaus,  see  Friedlieb,  Archaol.  84. 


496  THE  LIFE   OP   OUB  LORD. 

suppose  any  change  of  place  on  the  part  of  the  Lord.  As 
we  have  seen,  the  Sanhedrim  probably  assembled  in  a  large 
room  directly  connected  with  the  court,  and  open  in  front, 
and  therefore  what  was  said  in  the  one  could,  with  more 
or  less  distinctness,  be  heard  in  the  other.  There  is,  then, 
no  difficulty  in  believing  that  Jesus  had  heard  all  the  deni- 
als of  Peter ;  and  that  now,  as  he  denied  Him  for  the  third 
time,  and  the  cock  crew,  He  turned  Himself  to  the  court 
and  looked  upon  the  conscience-stricken  apostle.  Meyer, 
indeed,  finds  it  psychologically  impossible  that  he  should 
have  made  these  denials  in  the  presence  ot  Jesus.1  Few 
will  deem  such  a  psychological  impossibility,  which  exists 
only  in  the  mind  of  the  critic,  of  much  weight  against  the 
word  of  an  Evangelist ;  but,  in  fact,  Peter  was  not  in  His 
presence,  though  not  far  removed. 

We  have  no  datum  to  determine  at  what  hour  of  the 
night  these  denials  took  place,  except  we  find  it  in  the  cock- 
cro wings.  Mark  (xiv.  68)  relates  that  after  the  first  denial 
the  cock  crew.  All  the  Evangelists  mention  the  third  de- 
nial in  connection  with  the  second  cock-crowing.  Greswell 
(iii.  216)  makes  the  first  cock-crowing  to  have  been  about 
2  a.  m.,  the  second  about  3  a.  m.'  But  we  do  not  know 
whether  this  second  cock-crowing  was  at  the  end  of  the 
first  examination,  or  during  the  formal  trial,  or  at  its  close, 
and  have  therefore  no  datum  to  determine  when  the  San- 
hedrim began  its  session.  We  cannot,  however,  well  place 
it  later  than  3  a.  m.  How  long  it  continued  we  shall  pres- 
ently see. 

We  have  still  to  inquire  as  to  the  legality  of  the 
Lord's  trial.  As  to  the  competency  of  the  court,  no  reason- 
able doubt  can  exist.  The  Sanhedrim  had  lawful  and  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction  in  all  cases  where  capital  punishment 

1  Note,  Luke  xxii.  61. 

>  So,  in  substance,  Wieseler,  406 ;  Lichtenstein,  422. 


LEGALITY    OF  THE  LOBD'S  TRIAL.  497 

could  be  inflicted ;  *  and  among  the  offences  punishable  with 
death,  were  false  claims  to  prophetic  inspiration,  and  blas- 
phemy.  Several  instances  are  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  where  the  disciples  were  arraigned  before  it :  iv. 
5-21 ;  v.  17-40  ;  vi.  12-15  ;  xxiii.  1-10.  Although  its  ori- 
gin cannot  easily  be  traced,  it  was  at  this  time  the  recog- 
nized  tribunal  for  the  trial  of  all  the  more  important 
offences.'  That  usually  the  trials  were  fair,  and  the  judg- 
ment equitable,  there  seems  no  good  reason  to  doubt. 

Whilst  the  Sanhedrim  had  power  to  try  those  charged 
with  capital  offences,  it  had  no  power  to  execute  the 
sentence  of  death.  It  is  generally  agreed  that  from  the 
time  Judea  became  a  Roman  province,  or  from  the  deposi- 
tion of  Archelaus  (759)  the  authority  to  punish  capitally, 
the  jus  gladii,  had  been  taken  away  from  the  Jewish  tri- 
bunals. Lightfoot  (on  Matt.  xxvi.  3)  gives  as  a  tradition 
of  the  Talmudists:  "Forty  years  before  the  temple  was 
destroyed,  judgment  in  capital  cases  was  taken  away  from 
Israel."  He  elsewhere  remarks,  (on  John  xviii.  31 :)  "It 
cannot  be  denied  but  that  all  capital  judgment,  or  sentence 
upon  life,  had  been  taken  from  the  Jews  for  above  forty 
years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  as  they  often- 
times themselves  confess."  It  seems  to  have  been  the 
•  •ust  <  .in  of  the  Romans  to  take  into  their  own  hands,  in  con- 
quered provinces,  the  power  of  life  and  death,  as  one  of  the 
principal  attributes  of  sovereignty.8  That  the  Sanhedrim 
lost  this  power  by  its  own  remissness,  and  not  by  any  act 
of  the  Romans,  as  affirmed  by  Lightfoot  from  the  Talmud- 
ists, is  wholly  improbable.4 

*  Josephus,  Antiq.  14.  9.  8. 

»  Friedlieb,  Archaol.  20 ;  Winer,  ii.  552. 

»  See  Dupin,  Jesus  devant  Caiphe  et  Pilate.     Paris,  1855,  p.  88. 

*  See  Winer,  ii.  553,  note  1.  Friedlieb,  Archaol.,  97.  Bynaeus  (iii.  19)  af- 
firms that  the  Jews  had  judgment  in  capital  cases  other  than  that  of  treason ; 
but,  from  fear  of  the  people,  they  charged  Him  with  this  offence  to  throw  the 
odium  and  danger  of  His  execution  upon  Pilate. 


498  THE   LIFE   OF    OUB   LOBD. 

It  has  been  inferred  by  some,  from  Pilate's  words  to  the 
Jews,  (John  xix.  6,)  "  Take  ye  Him  and  crucify  Him,"  that 
the  right  to  inflict  capital  punishment  in  ecclesiastical  cases, 
though  not  in  civil,  was  still  continued  to  them.1  But  these 
words  seem  to  have  been  spoken  in  bitter  irony.  Cruci- 
fixion was  not  a  Jewish  punishment,  nor  could  they  inflict 
it.*  Krafft  (142)  explains  their  language,  (John  xviii.  30,) 
"  If  He  were  not  a  malefactor,  we  would  not  have  delivered 
Him  up  unto  thee,"  as  meaning  that  He  was  guilty  of  a 
civil  offence.  Were  this  man  a  spiritual  offender,  we  would 
have  punished  Him  ourselves.  They  accused  Him  of  civil 
crime  in  order  to  throw  the  responsibility  of  His  death 
upon  Pilate.  But  agaiust  this  is  the  fact  that  Pilate  refused 
to  punish  Him  for  any  such  offence,  and  that  the  Jews  were 
at  last  obliged  to  charge  Him  with  violation  of  ecclesiastical 
law,  (John  xix.  7.)  It  is  certain  that  if  they  had  had  power 
to  punish  Him  upon  this  ground,  he  would  at  once  have 
given  the  case  into  their  hands,  and  thus  thrown  off  all 
responsibility  from  himself.  Their  words,  (xviii.  31,)  "It  is 
not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death,"  seem  plainly  to 
cover  the  whole  ground,  and  to  embrace  ecclesiastical  as 
well  as  civil  cases.3  The  view  supported  by  some,4  that  the 
Jews  had  authority  to  put  Jesus  to  death,  but  did  not  dare 
exercise  it  because  of  the  holiness  of  the  day,  and  yet  did 
not  dare  retain  Him  in  prison  lest  it  should  provoke  insur- 
rection, and  so  sought  Pilate's  help,  seems  without  any 
good  basis. 

It  thus  appears  that  all  capital  offences  must  be  reserved 
to  the  cognizance  of  the  procurator.  The  Sanhedrim  could 
try  and  convict,  but  must  obtain  his  assent  ere  the  sentence 


1  So  A.  Clarke,  Kraffl.  »  Merer  in  loco. 

8  As  to  the  death  of  Stephen,  (Acts  vii.  58,^  and  its  bearings  on  this  point, 
see  Meyer  and  Lechler  in  loco,  who  maintain  that  it  was  an  act  of  violence, 
and  illegal :    contra,  Alexander  in  loco ;  Winer,  ii.  553,  note  2. 

*  Early  by  Augustine ;  see  Godwyn,  Moses  and  Aaron,  200. 


NATUIiE   OF   THE   ACCUSATION.  499 

could  be  executed.  These  reserved  cases  Pilate  seems  to 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  hearing  when  he  went  up  from 
Cffisarea  to  Jerusalem  at  the  feasts.1  The  case  of  Jesus, 
then,  must  necessarily  come  before  him,  and  he  could  con- 
firm or  set  aside  their  verdict  as  he  pleased.  "  It  appears," 
says  Lardner, "  from  the  sequel,  that  Pilate  was  the  supreme 
judge  in  this  case,  and  the  master  of  the  event.  For  he 
gives  the  case  a  fresh  hearing,  asks  the  Jews  what  accusa- 
tion they  had  brought,  examined  Jesus,  and  when  he  had 
done  so,  told  them  that  he  found  in  Him  no  fault  at  all. 
Thus  his  conduct  is  full  proof  that  he  was  the  judge,  and 
that  they  were  only  prosecutors  and  accusers." 

Let  us  now  inquire  what  was  the  actual  accusation 
brought  against  the  Lord  before  the  Sanhedrim.  None  of 
the  Evangelists  mention  specifically  of  what  He  was  accused. 
We  are  told  that  the  council  sought  false  witness  against 
Him.  But  to  what  did  these  witnesses  testify?  Their 
testimony  is  not  given,  except  in  one  instance,  and  that  a 
perversion  of  His  words,  (John  ii.  19  :)  "Destroy  this  tem- 
pie,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up."  If  the  statements 
of  the  witnesses  had  been  concordant  and  true,  this  lan- 
guage could  be  regarded  at  most  as  only  a  vainglorious 
boast ;  and  if  deserving  of  any  punishment,  certainly  not  of 
death.  So  far  as  appears,  no  charges  were  brought  against 
Him  that  could  be  proved,  and  He  was  at  last  condemned 
upon  His  own  confession  that  He  was  the  Christ  and  Son 
of  God.  This  fact  is  very  remarkable,  and  demands  our 
attentive  consideration. 

It  is  evident,  from  the  Evangelists,  that  the  rulers  of 
the  Jews  were  early  resolved  to  put  Jesus  to  death,  so  soon 
as  they  could  find  any  sufficient  ground  of  accusation.  That 
He  had  broken  the  Sabbath,  according  to  their  construc- 
tion of  the  law,  by  the  healing  of  the  sick,  (Luke  vi.  6-1 1,) 

i  Ewald,  v.  16  ;  Friedlieb,  Archaol.  104. 


500  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

and  perhaps  in  other  ways,  and  that  He  had  assumed  to 
forgive  sins,  which  was,  by  implication,  blasphemy,  (Matt, 
ix.  3,)  was  beyond  question ;  but  for  offences  of  this  kind 
they  did  not  dare  arrest  Him.1  But  when  they  learned 
that  in  His  teaching  He  "  made  Himself  equal  with  God," 
(John  v.  18,)  this  was  a  flagrant  transgression  of  the  law, 
and  a  capital  offence.  The  first  of  the  ten  commandments 
was,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me,"  and  for 
a  man  to  make  himself  God,  the  equal  of  Jehovah,  was  a 
violation  of  this  command,  and  a  crime  of  the  deepest  dye. 
It  was  both  blasphemy  and  treason,  and  hence  the  attempt 
of  the  Jews  to  kill  Him  upon  the  spot.  A  few  mouths 
later  they  "  murmured  at  Him,  because  He  said,  I  am  the 
Bread  which  came  down  from  Heaven,"  (John  vi.  41.) 
When,  a  little  later,  He  said,  "  Before  Abraham  was,  lam," 
(viii.  58,)  thus  implying  a  divine  preexistence,  they  took 
up  stones  to  stone  Him ;  and  when  afterward  (x.  30)  He 
still  more  plainly  affirmed,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one," 
they  again  sought  to  stone  Him.  They  expressly  declared, 
"  We  stone  thee  for  blasphemy,  and  because  that  thou,  being 
a  man,  makest  thyself  God." 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  was  to  this  point,  the 
assertion  by  Jesus  of  an  equality  with  God,  that  the  testi- 
mony of  the  "many  false  witnesses"  was  turned.  His 
other  and  minor  offences  were  well  known  and  undisputed. 
He  had  wrought  many  miracles,  He  had  wrought  some  on 
the  Sabbath,  He  had  claimed  to  be  the  Lord  of  the  Sab- 
bath, He  had  assumed  the  power  to  forgive  sins.  All  these 
things  were  well  known,  and  witnesses  testifying  to  them 
would  not  have  testified  falsely.  It  may  be  that  attempts 
were  made  to  prove  that  He  had  spoken  against  Jehovah, 
that  He  had  denied  the  authority  of  the  law,  that  He  had 

1  In  John  v.  16,  where  it  is  said,  "  The  Jews  sought  to  slay  Him  because 
He  had  done  these  things  on  the  Sabbath  day,"  the  clause  "  sought  to  slay 
Him,"  is  omitted  by  Teschendorf.    So  Alford,  Meyer. 


NO   LEGAL  EVIDENCE  AGAINST  JESUS.  501 

prophesied  falsely,  that  He  had  been  a  disturber  of  the 
public  peace.  But  if  these  charges  were  made,  they  must 
have  been  subordinate  to  the  higher  one,  that,  "  being  a 
man,  He  made  Himself  God."  Could  not,  then,  this  charge 
be  proved  against  Him  ?  Probably  not.  If  any  witnesses 
could  be  found  to  report  what  He  had  said,  still  His  words 
were  mysterious,  and  there  was  room  for  great  difference 
of  interpretation.  That  He  did  assume  to  be  something 
more  than  man  was  the  current  belief,  but  one  by  no  means 
easy  to  establish  by  legal  evidence. 

Whether  the  mere  claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  if  proved 
false,  was  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  a  capital  offence,  is  very 
questionable ;  but  if  so,  there  was  the  same  difficulty  in  find- 
ing proof  against  Jesus  in  regard  to  His  Messianic  claims 
as  in  regard  to  His  divinity.  In  no  instance  recorded,  ex- 
cept that  of  the  Samaritan  woman,  (John  iv.  26,)  did  He 
avow  Himself  to  be  the  Christ  when  other  than  His  disci- 
ples were  present.  Nor  did  He  permit  evil  spirits  to  pro- 
claim Him  as  the  Messiah,  (Mark  i.  34.)  To  the  direct 
question  of  the  Jews  (John  x.  24)  He  answers  by  referring 
them  to  His  works.  He  permitted  the  apostles  to  confess 
their  faith  in  Him  as  the  Christ,  (Matt.  xvi.  16,)  but  He 
gave  them  strict  command  that  they  should  tell  it  to  no 
man,  (v.  20.)  Probably  no  two  witnesses  could  be  found, 
out  of  the  ranks  of  the  disciples,  who  had  ever  heard  out 
of  His  own  lips  an  avowal  of  His  Messiahship.  Had,  then, 
such  an  avowal  been  blasphemy,  they  could  not  on  this 
ground  condemn  Him. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Jews  found  cause  to  charge 
Jesus  with  blasphemy  in  that  He  had  wrought  miracles  in 
His  own  name.  "  He  had  performed  many  miracles,  but 
never  in  any  other  name  than  His  own."1  It  is  said  that 
He  had  thus  violated  the  law,  (Deut.  xviii.  20,)  "  He  that 

»  Greenlcaf,  Test,  of  Evangelists,  524. 


502  THE  LITE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

shall  speak  in  the  name  of  other  gods,  even  that  prophet 
shall  die ; "  for  if  to  prophesy  in  the  name  of  another  god 
deserved  death,  equally  so  to  perform  any  miracle  or  super- 
natural work  in  his  name.  But  it  may  well  be  questioned 
whether,  on  this  ground,  He  could  have  been  tried  for 
blasphemy.  If  He  did  not  work  His  miracles  expressly  in 
the  name  of  Jehovah,  yet  He  ever  affirmed  that  the  power 
was  not  in  Himself,  but  from  God.  (Compare  John  v.  19, 
viii.  18.)  Nor  was  He  ever  understood  to  work  them  by 
virtue  of  His  own  deity.  Beholding  what  He  did,  the 
multitudes  "  marvelled  and  glorified  God,  who  had  given 
such  power  unto  men,"  (Matt.  ix.  8.)  And  at  His  final  en- 
try into  Jerusalem  the  cry  of  the  people  was, 4t  Blessed  is 
He  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

We  conclude,  then,  that  upon  no  ground  could  the 
Jews,  through  their  witnesses,  convict  Him  of  any  ecclesi- 
astical offence  punishable  with  death.  Neither  as  the  Son 
of  God,  nor  as  the  Messiah,  nor  as  a  false  prophet,  could 
He  be  legally  convicted  of  blasphemy.  His  violations  of 
the  Sabbath  were  not  such  as  they  could  punish  with  sever- 
ity, if  at  all.  If  He  had  disturbed  the  public  peace,  punish- 
ment of  this  offence  properly  belonged  to  the  Romans. 
Thus,  upon  the  rule  which  He  had  Himself  laid  down,  (John 
xviii.  21,)  "  Ask  them  which  heard  me  what  I  have  said  unto 
them,"  He  could  not  have  been  convicted.  Only  by  His 
own  confession  was  He  brought  within  the  scope  of  the 
law. 

A  Jewish  writer,  Salvador,  in  his  "  Histoire  des  Institu- 
tions de  Moise," !  commenting  upon  the  trial  of  Jesus,  at- 
tempts to  show  that  He  was  tried  fairly,  and  condemned 
legally.  He  speaks  of  Himself  as  God,  and  His  disciples 
repeat  it.  This  was  shocking  blasphemy  in  the  eyes  of  the 
citizens.     It  was  this,  not  His  prophetic  claims,  which  ex- 

»  Cited  by  Greenleaf,  Test  529,  and  by  Dupin,  Refutation,  41. 


JESUS   CONDEMNED  FOR  BLASPHEMY.  503 

cited  the  people  against  Him.  The  law  permitted  them  to 
acknowledge  prophets,  but  nothing  more.  In  answer  to 
Caiaphas,  He  admits  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  this  expres- 
sion including  the  idea  of  God  Himself.  m  The  Sanhedrim 
deliberates.  The  question  already  raised  among  the  people 
was  this :  Has  Jesus  become  God  ?  But  the  senate,  having 
adjudged  that  Jesus  had  profaned  the  name  of  God  by- 
usurping  it  to  Himself,  a  mere  citizen,  applied  to  Him  the 
law  of  blasphemy,  (Deut.  xiii.,  and  xviii.  20,)  according  to 
which  every  prophet,  even  he  who  works  miracles,  must 
be  punished  when  he  speaks  of  a  God  unknown  to  the  Jews 
and  their  fathers  ;  and  the  capital  sentence  was  pro- 
nounced." 

Had  the  accusation  against  Jesus,  as  asserted  by  Salva- 
dor, had  respect  simply  to  His  assertion  that  He  was  the 
Son  of  God,  and  He  been  condemned  upon  this  ground  only, 
however  great  the  blindness  and  guilt  in  not  recognizing 
His  divine  character,  it  could  not  be  said  that  the  court 
acted  illegally.  Such  an  assertion  from  the  lips  of  any 
mere  man  was  blasphemous.  If  a  false  prophet  deserved  to 
die,  how  much  more  he  who  made  himself  equal  with  God ! 
Was  it  for  this  that  He  was,  in  fact,  condemned  ?  When 
nothing  worthy  of  death  could  be  proved  against  Him  by 
the  witnesses,  Caiaphas  adjures  Him  by  the  living  God, 
"Tell  us  whether  thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."1 
We  cannot  certainly  determine  how  these  two  expressions, 
u  the  Christ,"  and  "  the  Son  of  God,"  were  connected  in  the 
mind  of  Caiaphas.  It  may  be  that  he  regarded  them  as  of 
substantially  the  same  meaning,  though  it  may  be  ques- 
tioned how  far  the  title,  Son  of  God,  was  one  of  the  cus- 
tomary titles  of  the  Messiah  at  this  time.  Still,  it  had 
been  so  often,  and  openly,  applied  to  Him,  that  we  can- 

1  Matt.  xxvi.  63.  According  to  Mark,  "  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  Blessed?"  This  adjuration,  according  to  Jewish  custom,  was  equivalent 
to  putting  the  Lord  under  oath.    Friedlieb,  Archaol.  91. 


504  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LOBD. 

not  well  suppose  Caiaphas  ignorant  of  it.  At  the  time  of 
His  baptism,  John  Baptist  testified  of  His  Divine  Sonship, 
(John  i.  34  :)  "  I  saw,  and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of 
God."  Very  soon  after,  (v.  49,)  Nathanael  thus  avows  his 
faith :  "  Rabbi,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God ;  thou  art  the  King 
of  Israel."  Often  was  He  thus  addressed  by  evil  spirits 
whom  He  cast  out,  (Matt.  viii.  29  ;  Mark  ill.  11,  v.  7 ;  Luke 
iv.  41,  viii.  28.)  After  the  stilling  of  the  tempest,  (Matt, 
xiv.  33,)  those  in  the  ship  said,  u  Of  a  truth  thou  art  the 
Son  of  God."  So  was  He  addressed  by  Martha,  (John  xi. 
27,)  "  I  believe  that  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God." 
During  the  crucifixion,  His  enemies,  mocking  Him,  cried, 
(Matt,  xxvii.  40-43,)  "  If  thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  come 
down  from  the  cross."  At  His  death  the  centurion  and 
guard  said,  (v.  54,) "  Truly  this  was  the  Son  of  God."  Only 
in  one  instance,  however,  did  Jesus  directly  claim  for  Him- 
self this  title,  (John  ix.  35-37,)  although  He  often  indirectly 
applied  it  to  Himselfl  (So  John  xi.  4.)  In  like  manner 
He  repeatedly  speaks  of  God  as  His  Father,  (John  v.  17.) 

Granting  that  this  phrase,  "  Son  of  God,"  was  currently 
applied  to  men  of  great  wisdom  and  piety,  still,  as  Salvador 
admits,  it  could  not  have  been  so  used  by  Caiaphas.  If  it 
did  not,  in  its  ordinary  usage,  imply  participation  of  the 
Divine  nature,  it  nevertheless  was,  and  was  designed  to  be, 
a  designation  that  distinguished  Him  from  all  other  men. 

That  the  Jews,  generally,  did  not  suppose  that  the  Mes- 
siah was  to  be  a  Divine  Person,  God  manifest  in  flesh,  seems 
fairly  inferable  from  the  perplexity  into  which  the  Lord's 
question  cast  them,  (Matt.  xxii.  42-45,)  "  What  think  ye 
of  the  Christ  ?  Whose  Son  is  He  ?  "  Only  a  few,  as 
Nathanael,  seem  to  have  had  a  higher  perception  of  the 
truth.1  Hence,  when  Jesus  was  presented  to  Pilate,  (John 
xix.  7,)  as  one  who  "  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God,"  he 
evidently  looked  upon  Him  as  one  of  much  higher  preten- 

1  Luthardt,  i.  $44. 


f   AVOWAL   OF   HIS  DIVINITY.  505 

sions  than  a  mere  "  king  of  the  Jews."  Perhaps  Caiaphas, 
in  his  adjuration,  purposely  selected  both  titles,  that  in  this 
way  the  Lord's  own  conceptions  of  His  Messianic  dignity 
might  be  drawn  out,  and  the  way  opened  for  further  ques- 
tions. The  answer  of  Jesus,  "Thou  hast  said,"  was  an 
express  affirmation,  as  if  He  had  said,  "  I  am ; "  and  was  re- 
garded as  blasphemy.  It  could  have  been  so  only  as  it  im- 
plied equality  with  God,  or  an  assumption  of  the  power  and 
authority  that  belonged  to  Jehovah  alone.  That  the  Jews 
so  understood  it,  is  plain  from  their  language  to  Pilate.1 

But  if  we  admit  that  the  Lord,  regarded  as  a  mere  man 
who  claimed  equality  with  God,  was  justly  condemned  by 
the  Sanhedrim,  as  Salvador  affirms,  still  it  by  no  means  fol- 
lows that  the  trial  was  fair  and  impartial.  He  had  long 
been  prejudged,  and  His  death  predetermined.  Almost 
from  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  spies  had  been  sent  to 
jf  atch  His  actions ;  and  afterward  it  was  agreed  that  if  any 
man  did  confess  that  He  was  Christ,  he  should  be  put  out 
of  the  synagogue,  (John  ix.  22.)  After  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus,  it  was  determined  in  council,  by  the  advice  of 
Caiaphas,  that  He  should  be  put  to  death,  and  that  without 
regard  to  His  guilt  or  innocence,  (John  xi.  47-53.)  After 
His  public  entry  into  Jerusalem,  several  attempts  were 
made  to  entangle  Him  in  His  talk  ;  then  a  consultation  was 
held  how  they  might  take  Him  by  subtlety  and  kill  Him ; 
then  one  of  His  apostles  was  bribed  to  betray  Him ;  and  at 
last  He  was  arrested  at  dead  of  night.  At  the  trial  itself, 
the  usual  forms  were  not  observed ;  no  one  appeared  as  ad- 
vocate for  Him,  no  witnesses  were  called  to  testify  in  His 
favor ;  and  when  the  witnesses  against  Him  could  not  agree 
in  their  testimony,  He  Himself  was  put  under  oath.*  The 
abuse  which  He  suffered,  both  before  and  after  the  trial, 

»  As  to  the  argument  for  the  Lord's  divine  nature,  drawn  from  this  trial, 
§ee  Whately ,  Kingdom  of  Christ,  Essay  I. 
»  See  Friedlieb,  Archiiol.  87  ;  Dupin,  75. 
22 


506  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR   LORD. 

and  in  the  very  presence  of  His  judges,  sufficiently  shows 
how  bitter  and  cruel  was  their  enmity  toward  Him. 


Friday  Morning,  15th   Nisan,  7th  April, 
783.     a.  d.  30. 

After  the  Sanhedrim  had  pronounced  Him  guilty 
of  blasphemy,  and  so  worthy  of  death,  it  suspends  its 
session  to  meet  at  break  of  day.     During  this  interval     Matt.  xxvi.  67,  68. 
Jesus  remains  in  the  high  priest's  palace,  exposed  to    Mark  xiv.  65. 
all  the  ridicule  and  insults  of  His  enemies,  who  spit    Lukk  xxil  63-65. 
upon  Him,  and  smite  Him.     As  soon  as  it  was  day    Matt,  xxvii.  1,  2. 
the  Sanhedrim  again  assembles,  and,  after  hearing  His    Mark  xv.  1. 
confession  that  He  is  the  Christ,  formally  adjudges     Lukk  xxil  66-71. 
Him  to  death.    Binding  Him,  they  lead  Him  away  to    Lckk  xxiii.  1. 
the  Roman  governor  Pontius  Pilate,  that  he  may  exe- 
cute the  sentence.     Judas  Iscariot,  learning  the  issue    Matt,  xxvii.  3-10. 
of  the  trial,  and  that  Jesus  was  about  to  be  put  to    Acre  L  18,  19. 
death,  returns  the  money  the  chief  priests  had  given 
him,  and  goes  and  hangs  himself. 

Condemned  to  death  as  a  blasphemer,  Jesus  was  now 
given  up  by  the  council  to  the  abuse  of  His  captors  and  of 
the  crowd  ;  and  cruel  personal  violence  was  added  to  most 
contemptuous  speech.  Salvador  denies  that  the  council 
would  have  permitted  Him  to  be  so  treated  in  its  presence  ; 
but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  most  of  its  members  cher- 
ished the  most  bitter  and  vindictive  feelings  against  Him, 
and  in  their  fierce  fanaticism  thought  that  no  mercy  should 
be  shown  to  one  guilty  of  such  a  crime.  (Compare  Acts 
xxiii.  2.)  According  to  Matthew,  the  judges  themselves 
seem  to  have  taken  part  in  this  abuse ;  but  Luke  confines  it 
to  those  that  held  Jesus. 

It  has  been  inferred  from  Matt,  xxvii.  1,  and  Mark  xv. 
1,  that  there  was  a  second  and  later  session  of  the  Sanhe- 
drim than  that  at  which  Jesus  was  tried.1  Others  suppose 
1  Greswell,  iii.  203  ;  Friedlieb,  326. 


SECOND   SESSION   OF  THE   SANHEDRIM.  507 

that  the  Sanhedrim  continued  its  session  after  the  trial 
proper  had  ended,  having  as  the  special  subject  of  consulta- 
tion how  the  sentence  pronounced  against  Jesus  could  "be 
carried  into  effect.1  The  language  of  these  two  Evangel- 
ists is  not  decisive  as  to  the  point.  That  which  most  im- 
plies a  new  and  distinct  session  is  the  designation  of  time. 
Matthew  :  "  When  the  morning  was  come,  7rpuwas  8c  ycvo/*c- 
vry:,  all  the  chief  priests,"  Ac.  Mark :  "  And  straightway  in 
the  morning,"  cv&cos  cm  to  itoom,  <fec.  This  allusion  to  the 
fact  that  it  was  morning,  seems  to  have  some  special  signifi- 
cance, and  may  refer  to  the  fact  that  capital  cases  could  not  be 
legally  tried  in  the  night ;  and  hence  a  morning  session 
was  necessary.  "  Capital  cases  were  only  to  be  handled  by 
day." '  This  is  affirmed  by  Salvador,  (quoted  by  Green- 
leaf:)  "  One  thing  is  certain,  that  the  council  met  again  on 
the  morning  of  the  next  day,  or  of  the  day  after,  as  the  law 
requires,  to  confirm  or  to  annul  the  sentence  ;  it  was  con- 
firmed." Neither  Matthew  nor  Mark  states  that  the  place 
of  session  had  been  changed,  though  perhaps  their  lan- 
guage may  intimate  a  meeting  more  largely  attended." 

Our  decision  as  to  a  second  and  distinct  session  of  the 
Sanhedrim  will  mainly  depend  upon  the  place  we  give  to 
the  account  in  Luke,  (xxii.  66-71.)  Is  this  examination  of 
Jesus  identical  with  that  of  Matt.  xxvi.  57-68,  Mark  xiv. 
53-65 ?4  Against  this  identity  are  some  strong  objec- 
tions: 1st.  The  mention  of  time  by  Luke:  "As  soon  as  it 
was  day."  This  corresponds  well  to  the  time  of  the  morn- 
ing session  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  but  not  to  the  time  when 
Jesus  was  first  led  before  the  Sanhedrim,  which  must  have 
been  two  or  three  hours  before  day.  2d.  The  place  of 
meeting:   "They  led  Him  into   their  council,"  anryayov 

>  Meyer,  Ellicott,  Lichtenstein.  *  Lightfoot ;  see  Friedlieb,  Arch.  95. 

*  Compare  Mark  xiv.  53  with  xv.  1.    Id  the  latter  case,  "  the  whole  coun- 
cil "  being  expressly  mentioned. 

*  Meyer,  Alford,  Lichtenstein,  Ebrard. 


508  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

avrov  «s  to  (Twc&piov  cavTwv.  This  might  better  be  ren- 
dered, "  they  led  Him  up  into  their  council  chamber,"  or 
the  place  where  they  usually  held  their  sessions.1  Whether 
this  council  chamber  was  the  room  Gazith,  at  the  east  cor- 
ner of  the  court  of  the  temple,  is  not  certain.  Lightfoot 
(on  Matt.  xxvi.  3)  conjectures  that  the  Sanhedrim  was 
driven  from  this  its  accustomed  seat  half  a  year  or  there- 
about before  the  death  of  Christ.  But  if  this  were  so,  still 
the  "  Tabernce,"  where  it  established  its  sessions,  were 
shops  near  the  gate  Shusan,  and  so  connected  with  the 
temple.  They  went  up  to  that  room  where  they  usually 
met.*  3d.  The  dissimilarity  of  the  proceedings,  as  stated 
by  Luke,  and  which  shows  that  this  was  no  formal  trial. 
There  is  here  no  mention  of  witnesses — no  charges  brought 
to  be  proved  against  Him.  He  is  simply  asked  if  He  is 
the  Christ ;  and  this  seems  plainly  to  point  to  the  result 
of  the  former  session.  Then,  having  confessed  Himself 
to  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  He  was  condemned  to 
death  for  blasphemy.  It  was  only  necessary  now  that  He 
should  repeat  this  confession,  and  hence  this  question  is  r3ut 
directly  to  Him  :  "  Art  thou  the  Christ  ?  tell  us."  His  re- 
ply, "  If  I  tell  you  ye  will  not  believe.  And  if  I  also  ask 
you,  ye  will  not  answer  me,  nor  let  me  go,"  points  back- 
ward to  His  former  confession.  To  His  reply  they  only 
answer  by  asking,  "  Art  thou  then  the  Son  of  God  ? " 
The  renewed  avowal  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  heard 
by  them  all  from  His  own  lips,  opens  the  way  for  His  im- 
mediate delivery  into  Pilate's  hands.1  4th.  The  position 
which  Luke  gives  (xxii.  63-65)   to  the  insults  and  abuse 

1  See  Meyer  in  loco ;  Rob.  Lex.,  Art.  <rvve$piot> :  here  "  as  including  the 
place  of  meeting;  the  Sanhedrim  as  sitting  in  its  hall." 

9  So  Kraffl,  Greswell.  See,  however,  against  this,  John  xviii.  28,  which 
implies  that  Jesus  was  led,  not  from  the  temple,  but  from  the  palace  of  Caia- 
phas,  to  Pilate.  This  would  not  disprove  the  fact  of  a  second  session  of  the 
Sanhedrim,  but  shows  that  it  was  held  at  the  same  place  as  the  first. 

8  See  Stier,  vii.  336  ;  Greswell,  iii.  204. 


OBJECT  OF  A   SECOND   SESSION.  509 

heaped  upon  Jesus.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  are 
the  same  mentioned  by  Matthew  and  Mark  as  occurring 
after  the  sentence  had  been  pronounced,  and  before  the 
second  session  to  ratify  it. 

From  all  this  it  is  a  probable,  though  not  a  certain  con- 
clusion, that  Luke  (xxii.  66-71)  refers  to  the  same  meeting 
of  the  Sanhedrim  mentioned  by  Matthew  (xxvii.  1)  and 
Mark,  (xv.  1,)  and  relates,  in  part,  what  then  took  place. 
Alford  thinks  that  Luke  has  confused  things,  and  relates  as 
happening  at  the  second  session  what  really  happened  at 
the  first.  This  meeting  was,  then,  a  morning  session,  con- 
vened to  ratify  formally  what  had  been  done  before  with 
haste  and  informality.  The  circumstances  under  which  its 
members  had  been  convened  at  the  palace  of  Caiaphas,  suf- 
ficiently show  that  the  legal  forms,  which  they  were  so  scru- 
pulous in  observing,  had  not  been  complied  with.  The  law 
forbidding  capital  trials  in  the  night  had  been  broken  ;  the 
place  of  session  was  unusual,  if  not  illegal ;  perhaps  the  at- 
tendance, so  early  after  midnight,  had  not  been  full.  On 
these  accounts  it  was  expedient  that  a  more  regular  and 
legal  sitting  should  be  held  as  early  in  the  morning  as  was 
possible.  At  this  nothing  was  to  be  done  except  to  hear 
the  confession  of  Jesus,  to  pronounce  sentence,  and  to  <•<  >iu 
suit  in  what  manner  it  could  best  be  carried  into  effect. 

One  object  of  this  morning  session  was  to  consult  how 
they  might  put  Him  to  death  ;  for,  although  they  had  con- 
demned Him,  they  had  no  power  to  execute  the  sentence. 
To  put  Jesus  to  death,  they  must  then  have  at  least  the  as- 
sent of  Pilate.  Their  plans  for  obtaining  this  will  appear 
as  we  proceed.  Being  again  bound,  He  was  led  early  in 
the  morning  before  Pilate. 

So  soon  as  Judas  learned  what  the  Sanhedrim  had  done, 
he  knew  that  the  Lord's  fate  was  decided,  and  bitterly 
repented  of  his  treachery.'     Taking  the  money,  the  price 

»  That  this  was  upon  the  same  day,  seems  fairly  inferable  from  Matt. 
xxril  8,  rort  i8w,  Ac. 


510  THE   LIFE   OF   OUB   LOED. 

of  his  crime,  he  carried  it  back  to  the  chief  priests  and  el 
ders,  confessing  his  sin  in  betraying  innocent  blood.  It  is 
not  said  where  he  found  them,  whether  at  the  palace  of 
Caiaphas  or  at  their  own  council  chamber  in  the  temple. 
If  the  latter  was  the  case,  we  have  a  ready  explanation  of 
the  fact  that  "  he  cast  down  the  pieces  of  silver  in  the  tem- 
ple and  departed."  l  That  part  of  the  temple  in  which  he 
cast  them,  is  denned  as  tv  t<j>  vay,  which,  according  to  the 
uniform  usage  of  the  term  in  the  Gospels,  cannot  mean  any 
thing  else  than  the  inner  court,  or  court  of  the  priests,  or 
holy  place."  Into  this  it  was  not  lawful  for  him  to  enter ;  but 
he  could  approach  the  entrance  and  cast  the  silver  with- 
in;  or,  in  his  remorse  and  despair,  entering  the  holy  place, 
he  casts  it  down  at  the  feet  of  the  priests,  who,  it  may  be, 
were  there,  preparing  to  offer  the  morning  sacrifice.  From 
thence  he  departs  and  hangs  himself.  But  how  is  this  state- 
ment to  be  reconciled  with  that  of  Peter,  (Acts  L  18,) 
that,  "falling  headlong,  he  burst  asunder  in  the  midst 
«— koli  Trpr]vrj<i  ycvo/xcvo?  cA-axr/orc  /acctos — and  all  his  bowels 
gushed  out."  De  Quincy*  finds  here  only  a  figurative 
statement  that  "  he  came  to  utter  and  unmitigated  ruin," 
and  died  of  a  "  broken  heart."  The  language  is  obviously 
to  be  taken  in  its  literal  sense ;  and  the  bursting  asunder  of 
Judas  may  readily  have  happened  after  he  had  hung  him- 
self. Such  a  thing  as  the  breaking  of  a  cord,  or  a  beam, 
or  bough  of  a  tree,  is  not  unusual ;  or,  at  the  moment  when 
the  body  was  about  to  be  taken  down,  it  may  by  accident 
or  carelessness  have  fallen.  Hackett,*  referring  to  a  sug- 
gestion that  he  may  have  hung  himself  upon  a  tree  over- 
hanging the  valley  of  Hinnom,  says :  "  For  myself,  I  felt,  as 
I  stood  in  the  valley  and  looked  up  to  the  rocky  terraces 
which  hang  over  it,  that  the  proposed  explanation  was  a 
perfectly  natural  one.    I  was  more  than  ever  satisfied  with 

»  See  Greswell,  iii.  219.  »  Meyer,  Alford. 

»  Essay  upon  Judas  Iscariot  *  IU.  Scrip.,  266. 


DEATH    OF   JUDAS.  511 

it."  He  found  the  precipice,  by  measurement,  to  be  from 
twenty-five  to  forty  feet  in  height,  with  olive  trees  growing 
near  the  edges,  and  a  rocky  pavement  at  the  bottom,  so 
that  a  person  who  fell  from  above  would  probably  be 
crushed  and  mangled,  as  well  as  killed.1 

Meyer  finds  proof  that  Matthew,  in  his  statement  that 
Judas  "  hanged  himself"  and  Luke,  in  his  report  of  Peter's 
statement  that  he  "  burst  asunder,"  followed  different  tra- 
ditions, in  the  fact  that,  as  self-murder  was  very  unusual 
amongst  the  Jews,  Peter  could  not  have  passed  it  by  in 
silence.  But,  as  the  falling  and  bursting  asunder  were  subse-. 
quent  to  the  hanging,  and  presupposed  it ;  and  as  the  event 
had  taken  place  but  a  few  days  before,  and  was  well  known 
to  all  present ;  there  was  no  necessity  that  he  should  give 
all  the  details. 

Probably  the  money  which  had  been  paid  to  Judas,  had 
been  taken  from  the  treasury  of  the  temple  ;  and  the  priests 
and  elders,  unwilling  to  return  to  it  the  price  of  blood,  de- 
termine to  buy  a  field  to  bury  strangers  in.  Peter  (Acts  i. 
18)  speaks  as  if  Judas  had  himself  bought  it :  "  Now  this 
man  purchased  a  field  with  the  reward  of  iniquity."  Per- 
haps he  may  be  here  understood  as  speaking  oratorically, 
and  as  meaning  only  to  say  that  the  field  was  bought,  not 
by  himself  in  person,  but  with  his  money,  the  wages  of  his 
iniquity.'  If  so,  the  actual  purchase  of  the  field  was  doubt- 
less made  after  the  Lord's  crucifixion,  as  the  time  of  the 
priests  and  elders  was  too  much  occupied  upon  that  day  to 
attend  to  such  a  transaction.  Matthew  narrates  it  as  tak- 
ing place  before  the  crucifixion,  in  order  to  finish  all  that 
pertained  to  Judas.     Others  make  Judas  to  have  purchased 

1  At  to  the  various  traditional  accounts  of  Judas'  death,  see  Hofmann's 
Leben  Jesu,  338.  Bynaeus  (ii.  431)  gives  a  full  statement  of  the  various 
opinions  up  to  his  day.  Arculf,  (Early  Travels,  4,)  a.  d.  700,  speaks  of  being 
shown  the  large  fig  tree  from  the  top  of  which  Judas  suspeuded  himself. 

>  Alexander  in  loco ;  Lechler. 


512  THE  LIFE   OP    OUR  LOED. 

a  field  before  his  death  with  part  of  the  money  he  had  re- 
ceived ;  and  in  this  field  he  hanged  himself;  and  the  priests, 
after  his  death,  with  the  remainder  of  the  money,  to  have 
purchased  another.1  Thus  there  were  two  fields,  both 
called  "  the  field  of  blood,"  but  for  different  reasons :  one 
as  bought  with  the  price  of  blood,  the  other  as  the  place 
where  Judas  hanged  himself.  It  is  said  that  "  ecclesiastical 
tradition  appears  from  the  earliest  times  to  have  pointed 
out  two  distinct,  though  not  unvarying  spots,  as  referred  to 
in  the  two  accounts."  Early  travellers  mention  Aceldama 
as  distinct  from  the  spot  where  Judas  hanged  himself.' 
Maundrell  also  (468)  mentions  two  Aceldamas ;  one  on  the 
west  side  of  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  and  another  on  the  east 
side  of  the  valley  of  Jehosaphat,  not  far  distant  from  Siloa. 
To  the  latter  Saewulf  (42)  refers  as  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Oli- 
vet, a  little  south  of  Gethsemane.  That  two  fields  are  re- 
ferred to  by  the  Evangelists,  is  doubtful ;  and  the  former 
solution  of  the  discrepancy  is  to  be  preferred. 

The  field  of  blood  is  still  pointed  out  in  the  eastern  part 
of  the  valley  of  Hinnom.  "  The  tradition  which  fixes  it 
upon  this  spot  reaches  back  to  the  age  of  Jerome,  and  it  is 
mentioned  by  almost  every  visitor  of  the  Holy  City  from 
that  time  to  the  present  day.  The  field  or  plat  is  not  now 
marked  by  any  boundary  to  distinguish  it  from  the  rest  of 
the  hillside."  *  Hackett  *  observes :  "  Tradition  has  placed 
it  on  the  Hill  of  Evil  Council.  It  may  have  been  in  that 
quarter,  at  least;  for  the  field  belonged  originally  to  a 
potter,  and  argillaceous  clay  is  still  found  in  the  neigh- 
borhood. A  workman,  in  a  pottery  which  I  visited  at  Je- 
rusalem, said  that  all  their  clay  was  obtained  from  the  hill 
over  the  valley  of  Hinnom."  A  charnel  house,  now  in 
ruins,  built  over  a  cave  in  whose  deep  pit  are  a  few  bones 

»  See  Greswell,  iii.  220 ;  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  i.  15. 

»  So  Maundeville,  Early  Trav.  175. 

•  Robinson,  i.  354.  *  HI.  Scrip.,  267. 


MoTIVJiS   OF   JUDAS  513 

much  decayed,  is  still  shown.     Some  would  identify  it  with 
the  tomb  of  Ananias  mentioned  by  Josephus.1 

Our  purpose  does  not  lead  us  to  inquire  into  the  mo- 
tives that  impelled  Judas  to  betray  his  Lord.  The  theory, 
however,  advocated  by  many,'  that,  sharing  the  general 
Jewish  expectations  as  to  the  Messianic  kingdom,  and  fully 
believing  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah,  he  had  no  intention  of 
imperilling  His  life,  but  wished  only  to  arouse  Him  to  direct 
and  positive  action,  cannot  be  sustained.  If,  knowing  the 
supernatural  powers  of  Jesus,  he  had  no  fears  that  He 
could  suffer  evil  from  the  hands  of  His  enemies ;  and  deliv- 
ered Him  into  the  power  of  the  Jewish  authorities  in  order 
that  He  might  be  forced  to  assert  His  Messianic  claims, 
why  should  he  bargain  with  them  for  thirty  pieces  of  sil- 
ver ?  He  could  in  many  ways  have  accomplished  this  end, 
without  taking  the  attitude  of  a  traitor.  The  statements 
of  the  Evangelists  about  his  covenant  with  the  chief  priests, 
his  conduct  at  the  arrest,  his  return  of  the  money,  the  words 
of  Peter  respecting  him,  and  especially  the  words  of  the 
Lord,  u  Good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  never  been 
born,"  conclusively  show  that  he  sinned,  not  through  a  mere 
error  of  judgment,  while  at  heart  hoping  to  advance  the 
interests  of  his  Master,  but  with  deliberate  perfidy,  design- 
ing to  compass  His  ruin.' 


Friday  Morning,  15th  Nisan,  7th  April, 
783.    a.d.  30. 

The  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  who  led  Jesus  to    John  xviii.  28-33. 
Pilate,  refuse  to  enter  the  judgment  hall,  lest  they 
should  be  defiled ;  and  thereupon  he  comes  out  to  them 
and  asks  the  nature  of  the  accusation.     They  charge 

»  War,  6. 12.  2.    So  Barclay,  De  Saulcy.  »  De  Quincy,  Whately. 

»  See  Winer,  i.  635 ;  Ebrard,  524;  Christian  Review,  July,  1855. 
22* 


514 


THE  LIFE  OF   OUR   LOKD. 


Him  with  be:  *  malefactor,  and  Pilate  directs  them 
to  take  Him  id  judge  Him  themselves.  As  they 
cannot  inflict  a  capital  punishment,  they  bring  the 
charge  of  sedition ;  and  Pilate,  reentering  the  judg- 
ment hall,  and  calling  Jesus,  examines  Him  as  to  His 
Messianic  claims.  Satisfied  that  He  is  innocent,  Pilate 
goes  out  and  affirms  that  he  finds  no  fault  in  Him. 
The  Jews  renewing  their  accusations,  to  which  Jesus 
makes  no  reply,  and  mentioning  Galilee,  Pilate  sends 
Him  to  Herod,  who  was  then  at  Jerusalem ;  but  Jesus 
refuses  to  answer  his  questions,  and  is  sent  back  to 
Pilate.  The  latter  now  resorts  to  another  expedient. 
He  seats  himself  upon  the  judgment  seat,  and  calling 
the  chief  priests  and  elders,  declares  to  them  that  nei- 
ther himself  nor  Herod  had  found  any  fault  in  Him. 
According  to  custom,  he  would  release  Him.  But  the 
multitude  beginning  to  cry  that  he  should  release  Ba- 
rabbas,  not  Jesus,  he  leaves  it  to  their  choice.  During 
the  interval  whilst  the  people  were  making  their  choice, 
his  wife  sends  a  message  to  him  of  warning.  The 
people,  persuaded  by  the  priest  and  elders,  reject  Je- 
sus and  choose  Barabbas,  and  Pilate  in  vain  makes 
several  efforts  to  change  their  decision.  At  last  he 
gives  orders  that  Jesus  be  scourged  previous  to  cruci- 
fixion. This  was  done  by  the  soldiers  with  mockery 
and  abuse ;  and  Pilate,  going  forth,  again  takes  Jesus 
and  presents  Him  to  the  people.  The  Jews  continue 
to  demand  His  death,  but  upon  the  ground  that  He 
made  Himself  the  Son  of  God.  Terrified  at  this  new 
charge,  Pilate  again  takes  Jesus  into  the  hall  to  ask 
Him,  but  receives  no  answer.  Pilate  still  strives  ear- 
nestly to  save  Him,  but  is  met  by  the  cry  that  he  is 
Caesar's  enemy.  Yielding  to  fear,  he  ascends  the  tribu- 
nal, and,  calling  for  water,  washes  his  hands  in  token 
of  his  innocence,  and  then  gives  directions,  that  He  be 
taken  away  and  crucified.  As  He  comes  forth  he  pre- 
sents Him  to  them  as  their  King.  They  cry,  Crucify 
Him,  and  He  is  led  away  to  the  place  of  crucifixion. 


Like  xxiii.  2-4. 
Mark  xv.  2. 
John  xviii.  33-38. 
Matt.  xxviL  11. 

Matt,  xxvii.  12-14. 
Mark  xv.  3-6. 
Luk*  xxiii.  6-12. 

Matt,  xxvii.  16-18. 
Mark  xv.  6-10. 
Lckjc  xxiii.  18-17. 

John  xviii.  89,  40. 

Matt,  xxvii.  19. 


Matt,  xxvii.  20-23. 
Mark  xv.  11-14. 
Like  xxiii.  18-26. 
Matt,  xxvii.  26-31. 
Mark  xv.  16-20. 
John  xix.  1-4. 
John  xix.  6-12. 


Matt,  xxvii  24-25. 
John  xix.  13-16. 


It  is  not  easily  determined  whether  the  Pretorium  or 
judgment  hall,  to  which  Jesus  was  taken,  was  in  the  palace 


SITE   OF   THE  PBETOBIUM.  515 

of  Herod  the  Great,  and  now  occupied  by  Pila,  ;  or  in  the 
fortress  Antonia.  That  the  Roman  governor^  ^sometimes 
used  this  palace  as  head-quarters,  appears  fromfi  Josephus,1 
where  Floras  is  said  to  have  done  so ;  and  afterward  (2. 
15.  5)  mention  is  made  of  his  leading  out  the  troops  from 
the  royal  residence.  The  palace  of  Herod  at  C®sarea  was 
used  in  like  manner,  (Acts  xxiiL  35.)  The  palace  at  Jeru- 
salem was  situated  on  the  north  side  of  Mount  Sion,  and 
was  a  magnificent  building  of  white  marble,  with  which, 
according  to  Josephus,  the  temple  itself  bore  no  compari- 
son.1 It  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  palace  of  Solomon, 
which  was  lower  down  on  the  side  of  the  mount,  and  near 
the  temple,  and  where  Agrippa  afterward  built.'  That  it 
was  used  by  Pilate  when  he  visited  Jerusalem  is  very  prob- 
able.4 Those  who  place  the  judgment  hall  at  the  fortress 
Antonia  refer  in  proof  to  John  xix.  13,  where  it  is  said  that 
Pilate  "  sat  down  in  the  judgment  seat,  in  a  place  that  is 
called  the  Pavement,  but  in  the  Hebrew,  Gabbatha."  * 
This  Pavement  is  supposed  to  have  been  between  the  for- 
tress Antonia  and  the  western  portico  of  the  temple,  iden- 
tifying it  with  one  mentioned  by  Josephus.'  Pilate  was 
thus  sitting  upon  the  highest  point  of  the  large  temple  area, 
where  what  he  did  was  plainly  visible  to  all  present.  But 
the  fact  that  the  outer  court  of  the  temple  was  "  paved 
throughout " T  does  by  no  means  show  that  Pilate  here 
erected  his  tribunal.  Lightfoot  (in  loco)  argues  at  some 
length  to  show  that  this  Pavement  was  the  room  Gazith  in 
the  temple,  where  the  Sanhedrim  sat,  and,  as  the  Jews 
would  not  go  to  Pilate's  judgment  hall,  he  went  to  theirs. 

»  Wir,  2. 14.  8.  »  War,  1.  21.  1 ;  5.  4.  4. 

•  Josephus,  Antiq.  8.  5.  2;  20.  8.  11. 

•  So  Meyer,  Winer,  Alford,  Friedlieb,  Lewin.  Ewald  (v.  14)  supposes  this 
palace  to  have  been  reserved  for  the  use  of  Herod's  heirs,  when  they  came  to 
the  capital. 

•  Wieseler,  407.  •  War,  6. 1.  8;  and  6.  8,  2, 
'  Josephus,  War,  ">.  5.  2. 


516  THE  LIFE  OF   OUE  LOBD. 

Greswell  observes  that  u  to  suppose  that  the  tribunal  of 
Pilate  could  have  been  placed  in  any  court  of  the  temple 
would  be  palpably  absurd."  We  must  then  conclude  that 
this  Pavement  was  a  movable  one,  like  that  which  Sueto- 
nius mentions,  when  he  says  that  Julius  Cfflsar  took  with 
him  pieces  of  marble  ready  fitted,  that  they  might  be  laid 
down  at  any  place,  and  the  judgment  seat  be  placed  upon 
them ;  or,  which  is  more  probable,  that  it  was  the  open 
paved  space  before  the  palace  of  Herod.  The  latter  view 
is  confirmed  by  Josephus,1  for  Florus,  when  he  had  fixed 
his  quarters  in  the  palace,  erected  his  tribunal  in  front  of 
it,  and  there  gathered  the  chief  men  of  the  city  before  him. 
The  judge  seems  to  have  been  at  liberty  to  place  his  tribu- 
nal where  he  pleased,  and  Pilate  on  one  occasion  did  so  in 
the  great  circus.*  We  consider  it  then  most  probable  that 
all  the  judicial  proceedings  before  Pilate  were  at  the  palace 
of  Herod  upon  Mount  Sion.* 

Pilate,  being  informed  that  members  of  the  Sanhedrim 
had  brought  a  criminal  before  him,  and  of  their  unwilling- 
ness to  enter  the  palace,  goes  out  to  meet  them.*  It  was 
plainly  the  purpose  of  the  priests  and  elders  to  obtain  at 
once  from  Pilate  a  confirmation  of  their  sentence,  without 
stating  the  grounds  upon  which  He  had  been  condemned ; 
but  this  plan  was  wholly  baffled  by  his  question,  "  What 
accusation  bring  ye  against  this  man  ?  "  Whether  Pilate 
asked  this  question  from  a  sense  of  justice,  not  thinking  it 
right  to  condemn  any  man  to  death  without  knowing  his 
offence ;  or  whether  he  already  knew  who  the  prisoner  was, 
and  that  He   had  been    condemned    upon    ecclesiastical 

1  War,  2.  14.  8.  *  Josephus,  War,  2.  9.  8. 

1  Winer,  ii.  29 ;  Greswell,  iii.  225 ;  Tobler,  Top.  i.  222.  Many,  however, 
place  the  judgment  hall  in  the  castle  Autouia ;  so  Williams,  Barclay.  The 
point  is  important  only  in  its  bearings  on  the  site  of  the  sepulchre,  and  the 
direction  of  the  Via  Dolorosa. 

«  Jones  (Notes,  3  and  9)  puts  the  arrival  of  the  Jews  about  five  o'clock,  or 
a  little  before  sunrise ;  Ewald  (v.  483)  an  hour  before  sunrise. 


JESUS  BROUGHT  BEFORE  PILATE.  517 

grounds,  we  cannot  determine.  We  can  scarce  doubt, 
however,  that  he  had  some  knowledge  of  Jesus,  of  His 
teaching,  works,  and  character.  Without  troubling  him- 
self about  ecclesiastical  questions,  he  would  closely  watch 
all  popular  movements ;  and  he  could  not  overlook  a  man 
who  had  excited  so  much  of  public  attention.  If,  as  is 
most  probable,  he  was  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  Lord's 
public  entry,  he  must  have  heard  how  He  was  hailed  by 
the  multitude  as  King  of  the  Jews ;  and  the  fact  that  he 
placed  a  part  of  the  Roman  cohort  at  the  disposal  of  the 
priests  when  about  to  arrest  Him,  shows  that  they  must 
have  communicated  to  him  their  design.  But,  however 
this  may  have  been,  it  is  plain  that  he  was  by  no  means 
disposed  to  be  a  mere  tool  in  the  hands  of  the  priests  and 
elders  to  execute  their  revengeful  plans.  Vexed  at  his 
question,  they  reply,  almost  contemptuously,  "  If  He  were 
not  a  malefactor,  we  would  not  have  delivered  Him  up 
unto  thee."  It  is  as  if  they  had  said, '  We  have  tried  Him, 
and  found  Him  to  be  a  malefactor ;  there  is  no  need  of  any 
further  judicial  examination.  Rely  upon  us  that  He  is 
guilty,  and  give  us  without  more  delay  the  power  to  punish 
Him.' 

It  is  not  certain  what  force  is  to  be  given  to  the  word 
"  malefactor," '  but  apparently  His  accusers  design  to  desig- 
nate Jesus  as  one  who  had  broken  the  civil  laws,  and  there- 
fore was  amenable  to  the  civil  tribunals.  By  the  use  of  this 
general  term  they  conceal  the  nature  of  His  offence,  which 
was  purely  ecclesiastical.  They  had  condemned  Him  for 
blasphemy,  but  for  this  Pilate  would  not  put  Him  to  death 
— probably  would  not  entertain  the  case  at  all ;  and  as  they 
knew  not  what  other  crime  to  lay  to  His  charge,  they  pre- 
sent Him  as  a  malefactor.  This  vague  and  artful  reply  dis- 
pleases Pilate,  who  is,  beside,  touched  by  the  cool  effront- 

»  Kcucov  toiwv.  Teschendorf,  Alford. 


518  THE   LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

ery  of  the  council  in  demanding  that  he  shall,  without  exam- 
ination, ratify  their  sentence ;  and  he  answers  tartly,  "  Take 
ye  Him  and  judge  Him  according  to  your  law."  It  is  as  if 
he  had  said,  If  you  can  judge,  you  can  also  execute ;  but  if  I 
execute,  I  shall  also  judge.  This  answer  forces  them  to  con- 
fess that  they  had  no  power  to  put  Him  to  death ;  and  shows 
them  that,  if  they  would  accomplish  their  purpose,  they 
must  bring  some  direct  and  definite  charge,  and  one  of 
which  Pilate  would  take  cognizance.  They  therefore  now 
begin  to  accuse  him  of  perverting  the  nation,  of  forbidding 
to  give  tribute  to  Caesar,  and  of  saying  that  He  was  Christ, 
a  king,  (Luke  xxiii.  2.)  These  were  very  serious  accusa- 
tions, because  directly  affecting  Roman  authority,  and  such 
as  Pilate  was  bound  to  hear  and  judge. 

Up  to  this  time  Jesus  and  His  accusers,  and  Pilate,  had 
been  standing  without  the  Pretorium.  According  to  Roman 
law,  the  examination  might  take  place  within  the  Pretorium, 
but  the  sentence  must  be  pronounced  in  public  without. 
Entering  it,  Pilate  calls  Jesus  and  demands  of  Him,  "  Art 
thou  the  King  of  the  Jews  ?  "  The  Synoptists  give  simply 
this  reply  :  "  Thou  sayest,"  or  "I  am  ;  "  but  John  relates 
the  reply  in  full,  in  which  Jesus  describes  the  nature  of  His 
kingdom,  (xviii.  33-38.)  The  effect  of  this  conversation 
upon  Pilate  was  very  great.  He  saw  at  once  that  Jesus 
was  no  vulgar  inciter  of  sedition,  no  ambitious  demagogue 
or  fanatical  zealot,  and  that  the  kingdom  of  which  He 
avowed  Himself  to  be  the  king  was  one  of  truth,  and  not 
of  force.  At  worst,  He  was  only  a  religious  enthusiast, 
from  whose  pretensions  Caesar  could  have  nothing  to  fear ; 
and  he  determines  to  save  Him,  if  possible,  from  the  hands 
of  His  enemies.  Taking  Jesus  with  him,  he  goes  out  and 
declares  to  them  that  he  finds  no  fault  in  Him.  This, 
probably  unexpected,  exculpation  on  his  part  only  makes 
them  "  the  more  fierce,"  and  they  renew  the  charge  that 
He  stirred  up  the  people  throughout  all  Judea  and  Gali- 


PILATE   SENDS  JESUS  TO   HEROD.  519 

lee,  (Luke  xxiii.  5.)  Mark,  xv.  3,  says :  "  And  the  chief 
priests  accused  Him  of  many  things."  Galilee  may  have 
been  thus  mentioned  because  the  Galileans  were  prone  to 
sedition.  To  all  these  accusations  Jesus  answers  nothing,  so 
that  His  silence  makes  even  Pilate  to  marvel.  The  inci- 
dental mention  of  Galilee  suggests  to  the  governor  that  he 
might  relieve  himself  from  responsibility  by  sending  Him  to 
Herod,  who  was  then  in  the  city,  and  unto  whose  jurisdic- 
tion, as  a  Galilean,  He  rightfully  belonged.  He  accordingly 
sends  Him  to  Herod,  and  hopes  that  he  is  now  quit  of  the 
matter ;  or,  if  Herod  should  decline  jurisdiction,  that  he 
would  express  some  opinion  as  to  His  guilt  or  innocence. 
The  chief  priests  and  scribes  follow  Him,  that  they  may  re- 
new their  accusations  before  the  new  judge. 

By  Herod  the  Lord  was  gladly  received,  as  he  had  long 
desired  to  see  Him,  and  hoped  that  He  would  now  work 
some  miracle  before  him.  But  to  all  the  king's  questions 
He  answered  nothing,  nor  did  He  reply  to  the  accusations 
of  His  enemies.  Angry  at  His  continued  silence,  and  doubt- 
lees  interpreting  it  as  a  sign  of  contempt,  Herod  and  his 
soldiers  mock  Him  with  pretended  homage,  and,  clothing 
Him  in  a  gorgeous  robe,  send  Him  back  to  Pilate.1  His 
return  so  attired  was  a  very  intelligible  sign  to  Pilate  that 
Herod,  who,  from  his  position,  must  have  known  His  his- 
tory, had  no  knowledge  of  any  seditious  practices  in  Gali- 
lee ;  and  regarded  Him  as  a  harmless  man,  whose  Messianic 
pretensions  were  rather  to  be  ridiculed  than  severely  pun- 
ished. This  sending  of  Jesus  by  Pilate  to  Herod  was  under- 
stood by  the  latter,  and  probably  designed  by  the  former,  as 
a  mark  of  respect  and  good  will,  and  was  the  means  of  restor- 
ing friendship  between  them,  which  had  been  broken,  per- 

1  Some  would  make  this  a  white  robe,  such  as  candidates  for  office  were 
accustomed  to  wear,  and  chieftains  when  they  went  into  battle.  Thus  robed, 
He  appeared  as  a  candidate  for  the  honor  of  king  of  the  Jews.  So  Friedlieb, 
Archuol.  109 ;  contra,  Meyer.     In  Vulgate,  vesU  alba. 


520  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB  LORD. 

haps  by  some  question  of  conflicting  jurisdiction.1  Where 
Herod  took  up  his  residence,  when  in  the  city,  is  not  known. 
If  Pilate  occupied  the  fortress  Antonia,  Herod  would  doubt- 
less occupy  his  father's  palace.  It  is  not  probable  that  both 
occupied  the  latter  together,  as  some  suppose.'  Possibly 
he  made  his  abode  at  the  old  palace  of  the  Maccabees.'  In 
either  case,  the  distance  was  not  great,  and  but  little  time 
was  spent  in  going  to  and  returning  from  Herod. 

After  Jesus  was  brought  back  to  Pilate,  the  latter  calls 
together  "  the  chief  priests  and  the  rulers  and  the  people," 
(Luke  xxiii.  13.)  He  now  designs  to  pronounce  Him  inno- 
cent and  end  the  trial,  and  therefore  seats  himself  upon  his 
judgment  seat,  (Matt,  xxvii.  19.)  There  was  a  custom  that 
at  this  feast  a  prisoner  chosen  by  the  people  should  be  re- 
leased from  punishment.  As  to  the  origin  of  this  custom 
nothing  definite  is  known.  From  the  language  of  the  Synop- 
tists,  Kara  eopT7/v,  it  has  been  inferred  that  at  each  of  the 
feasts  a  prisoner  was  released.*  John,  however,  confines  it 
to  the  Passover,  and  it  might  have  had  some  special  refer- 
ence to  the  release  of  the  people  from  Egyptian  bondage. 
No  traces  of  it  are  to  be  found  in  later  Jewish  writings.  It 
may  possibly  have  been  established  by  the  Romans  as  a 
matter  of  policy,  but  more  probably  it  was  of  Jewish  origin, 
and  continued  by  the  Roman  governo  -s.'  Whether  Pilate 
had  this  custom  in  mind  when  he  took  his  seat  upon  the 
tribunal,  is  not  certain;  but  his  words  (Luke  xxiii.  16) 
strongly  imply  this,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  he  had  gathered 
the  people  together  with  the  chief  priests  and  rulers.  As- 
cending the  tribunal,  he  formally  declares  that,  having 
examined  Jesus,  he  had  found  no  fault  in  Him,  neither  had 
Herod,  to  whom  he  had  sent  Him ;  and  after  chastising 

1  Some  would  trace  the  origin  of  this  quarrel  to  the  incident  mentioned 
by  Luke  xiii.  1.    See  Greswell,  iii.  26. 

2  Lichtenstein,  432.  »  Josephus,  Antiq.  20.  3.  11. 

«  Friedlieb,  Archaol.  110.  •  Winer,  ii.  202 ;  Hoftnann,  360. 


THE  PEOPLE  CHOOSE  BAR  ABBAS.  521 

Him,  he  will  therefore  release  Him.  It  seems  from  the 
scope  of  the  narrative  that  he  intended  to  chastise  Jesus, 
thus  to  propitiate  the  priests,  and  then  to  release  Him 
under  the  custom  without  further  consulting  the  people. 
In  this  way,  apparently,  Pilate  thought  to  satisfy  all :  the 
people,  by  releasing  Him ;  the  priests  and  elders,  by  chas- 
tising Him ;  and  himselfj  by  delivering  Him  from  death. 
But  he  satisfied  none.  The  people,  reminded  of  their 
claim,  began  to  clamor  for  it,  but  they  did  not  demand  that 
Jesus  should  be  released.  To  satisfy  the  priests  and  rulers, 
His  chastisement  was  far  too  light  a  punishment  The  cry 
is  raised,  "  Away  with  this  man,  and  release  unto  us  Barab- 
bas." Pilate,  who  knew  how  well  affected  the  people  at 
large  had  been  to  Jesus,  cannot  believe  that  they  will  reject 
Him  and  choose  Barabbas ;  and  he  therefore  accepts  the 
alternative,  and  leaves  them  to  elect  between  the  two. 

Of  this  Barabbas,  son  of  Abbas,  little  is  known.  Accord- 
ing to  some  authorities,  the  true  reading  (Matt,  xxvii.  16 
and  17)  is  Jesus  Barabbas.1  From  the  statements  of  the 
Evangelists  respecting  him,  it  appears  that  he  was  one  of 
that  numerous  and  constantly  growing  party  who  detested 
the  Roman  rule,  and  who  afterward  gained  such  notoriety  as 
the  Zealots.  In  company  with  others,  he  had  stirred  up  an 
insurrection  in  the  city,  and  had  committed  murder,  (Mark 
IV.  7 ;  Luke  xxiii.  19.)  John  speaks  of  him  as  a  robber  also  ; 
but  this  crime  was  too  common  to  attract  much  attention, 
or  bring  upon  its  perpetrator  much  odium.  Josephus," 
speaking  of  Floras,  says  that  "he  did  all  but  proclaim 
throughout  the  country  that  every  one  was  at  liberty  to  rob, 
provided  he  might  share  in  the  plunder."  It  is  remarkable 
that  this  man  was  confessedly  guilty  of  the  very  crime  with 
which  the  priests  and  rulers  had  falsely  charged  Jesus — that 
of  sedition ;  and  no  plainer  proof  of  their  hypocrisy  could  be 

>  So  Meyer,  Ewald  ;  and,  formerly,  Tiachendorf :  contra,  A 1  ford. 
»  War,  2.  14.  2. 


522  THE  LIFE  OF   OUR  LOED. 

given  to  the  watchful  Pilate  than  their  efforts  to  release  the 
former  and  to  condemn  the  latter.  And  this  it  was  easy 
for  them  to  effect ;  for  the  tide  of  popular  feeling  ran  very 
strong  in  favor  of  national  independence,  and  one  who  had 
risen  up  against  the  Romans,  and  had  shed  blood  in  the  at. 
tempt,  was  deemed  rather  a  hero  and  a  patriot  than  a  mur- 
derer. On  the  other  hand,  Jesus,  so  far  from  encouraging 
the  rising  enmity  to  Roman  rule,  had  always  inculcated 
obedience  and  submission — teachings  ever  unpalatable  to  a 
subject  nation.  It  is  probable,  too,  that  most  of  those  pres- 
ent were  the  citizens  of  Jerusalem,  rather  than  the  pilgrims 
from  other  parts  of  the  land ;  and,  if  there  were  some  from 
Galilee,  that  they  did  not  dare,  in  opposition  to  the  rulers, 
to  express  openly  their  wishes. 

Whilst  waiting  for  the  people  to  come  to  a  decision,  he 
receives  the  message  from  his  wife  mentioned  by  Matt, 
xxvii.  19.  Nothing  is  known  of  her  but  her  name,  which 
tradition  gives  as  Procla,  or  Claudia  Procula.1  This  dream 
was  generally  regarded  by  the  fathers  as  supernatural,  and 
by  most  ascribed  to  God,  but  by  some  to  Satan,  who  wished 
to  hinder  the  Lord's  death."  This  message  would  naturally 
tend  to  make  Pilate  more  anxious  to  release  "that  just 
man,"  even  if  he  did  not  ascribe  to  the  dream  a  divine 
origin.8 

The  Synoptists  agree  that  Pilate  made  three  several  at- 
tempts to  persuade  the  people  to  release  Jesus,  though  the 
order  of  the  attempts  is  not  the  same  in  all.  The  events 
may  be  thus  arranged :  Pilate  presents  to  the  people  the 
two,  Jesus  and  Barabbas,  between  whom  they  were  to 
choose.  A  little  interval  followed,  during  which  he  received 

»  Winer,  ii.  262  ;  Hofmann,  340.  »  See  Jones,  Notes,  859. 

»  Lewin  (129)  finds  in  this  circumstance  a  proof  that  the  locality  was  Pi- 
late's ordinary  residence,  the  palace  of  Herod ;  and  that  the  charge  against 
Jesus  was  brought  at  so  early  an  hour  that  he  was  aroused  from  his  slum- 
bers to  hear  it. 


THE  PEOPLE   DEMAND  JESUS*    CRUCIFIXION.  523 

his  wife's  message.  He  now  formally  asks  the  people  whom 
they  wished  to  have  released,  (Matt,  xxvii.  21 ;  Mark  xv. 
9;  Luke  xxiii.  16-18.)  *They  answer,  Barabbas.  Pilate, 
hoping  that  by  changing  the  form  of  the  question  he  could 
obtain  an  answer  more  in  accordance  with  his  wishes,  says, 
"  What  shall  I  do  then  with  Jesus,  which  is  called  Christ  ?  " 
(Matt,  xxvii.  22 ;  Mark  xv.  12.  Luke,  xxiii.  20,  does  not 
give  the  question ;  but  the  answer  shows  that  it  must  have 
been  the  same  as  in  Matthew  and  Mark.)  To  this  they  re- 
ply, "  Let  Him  be  crucified."  Alexander  (on  Mark  xv.  13) 
suggests  that  the  cry  4t  Crucify  Him  "  arose  from  the  fact 
that,  as  Barabbas,  by  the  Roman  law,  would  have  been 
crucified,  Jesus  should  now  stand  in  his  stead  and  bear  his 
punishment.  Bynaeus  (iii.  118)  explains  it  on  the  ground 
that  crucifixion  was  the  usual  punishment  of  sedition,  of 
which  He  was  accused.  Pilate  now  sees  that  not  only  do 
the  people  reject  Jesus,  but  that  they  insist  upon  the  most 
severe  and  ignominious  punishment.  He  had  proposed 
chastisement ;  they  call  for  crucifixion.  He  had  not  antici- 
pated this,  and  will  reason  with  them.  He  therefore  asks, 
"  Why,  what  evil  hath  He  done  ?  "  (Matt,  xxvii.  23  ;  Mark 
xv.  14.)  Luke  (xxiii.  22)  adds:  "  I  have  found  no  cause  of 
death  in  Him  ;  I  will  therefore  chastise  Him  and  let  Him 
go."  This  judicial  declaration  of  His  innocence,  and  at- 
tempt to  substitute  the  milder  punishment,  only  cause  the 
people  to  cry  out  the  louder,  "  Let  Him  be  crucified." 

John  (xviii.  39,  40)  sums  up  the  narrative  very  briefly, 
and  gives  no  details.  He  omits  the  sending  to  Herod,  and 
states  only  the  result  of  the  popular  election. 

The  great  and  rapid  change  in  public  feeling  in  regard 
to  Jesus  which  four  or  five  days  had  brought,  would  appear 
incredible,  did  we  not  find  many  analogous  cases  in  history. 
The  thoughtlessness  and  fickleness  that  characterize  a  popu- 
lace, are  proverbial.  Besides,  we  here  find  special  causes  in 
operation  to  bring  about  this  change.     The  multitude,  that 


524  THE  LIFE  OF   OUB  LORD. 

shouted  "  Hosanna  to  the  son  of  David  "  on  the  day  of  His 
triumphal  entry,  doubtless  expected  that  He  would  imme- 
diately assert  His  kingly  claims,  2nd  take  a  position  before 
the  public  corresponding  to  His  high  dignity.  But  so  far 
from  this,  He  reappears  the  next  day,  not  as  a  prince,  but 
as  a  teacher ;  He  does  nothing  answering  to  their  expecta- 
tions ;  He  passes  much  of  His  time  in  seclusion  at  Bethany, 
and  the  excitement  of  His  entry  dies  away.  Still,  He  has  a 
powerful  hold  on  the  popular  mind  as  a  prophet  and  worker 
of  miracles ;  and  this  is  recognized  by  the  rulers  in  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  effect  His  arrest,  and  the  haste  with 
which  they  press  on  the  trial.  It  was  His  conviction  as  a 
blasphemer  that  turned  the  heart  of  the  people  against  Him. 
The  chief  priests,  the  elders,  the  scribes,  all  those  in  whom 
they  trusted,  and  who  guided  public  opinion,  were  busy  in 
declaring  that  He  had  blasphemed  in  the  presence  of  the 
whole  Sanhedrim.  He  assumed  to  be  something  more  than 
the  Messiah  whom  they  expected — to  be  even  the  Son  of 
God.  All  His  teachings,  all  His  miracles  are  straightway 
forgotten.    He  is  a  blasphemer ;  He  must  die. 

It  may  be,  also,  as  has  been  said,  that  most  of  those  who 
cried  "  Crucify  Him  "  were  citizens  of  Jerusalem,  who,  un- 
der the  influence  of  the  hierarchy,  had  never  been  well  in- 
clined toward  him,  and  do  not  seem  to  have  joined  in  the 
hosannas  and  rejoicings  upon  the  day  of  His  entry. 

From  the  Synoptists  it  would  appear  that,  after  the  fail- 
ure of  the  attempts  to  induce  the  multitude  to  release  Je- 
sus, Pilate,  despairing  of  success,  washed  his  hands  before 
the  people,  and  then  gave  Him  up  to  be  scourged  and  cru- 
cified. But  John  (xix.  4-12)  relates  other  and  apparently 
subsequent  attempts  to  save  Him,  placing  them  after  and 
in  connection  with  the  scourging.  Was  He,  then,  twice 
scourged?  This  is  affirmed  by  some,  who  regard  the 
scourging  of  John  (xix.  1-3)  as  designed  to  gratify  the  elders 
and  priests,  and  to  excite  popular  compassion ;  but  that 


THE   SCOURGING   OF  JESUS.  525 

mentioned  by  the  Synoptists  as  the  scourging  usually  in- 
flicted before  crucifixion.  But  this  is  improbable.  That 
scourging  generally  preceded  the  crucifixion,  appears  from 
Josephus.1  This  scourging  was  excessively  severe,  the 
leathern  thongs  being  often  loaded  with  lead  or  iron,  and 
cutting  through  the  flesh  even  to  the  bone,  so  that  some 
died  under  it."  But  the  Lord  having  been  once  scourged, 
there  seems  no  reason  why  it  should  be  repeated ;  nor  is  it 
likely  that  Pilate  would  have  permitted  it. 

If,  then,  Jesus  was  scourged  but  once,  and  the  accounts 
of  the  Synoptists  and  of  John  refer  to  the  same  event,  why 
did  Pilate  now  permit  it  ?  Was  it  that,  finding  himself 
unable  to  save  Jesus,  and  having  no  further  expedient,  he 
gives  up  the  struggle,  and  sends  Him  away  to  be  scourged 
as  preliminary  to  His  death  ? '  Or  did  he  permit  it,  hoping 
that  through  the  milder  punishment  he  might  awaken  pity, 
and  thus  rescue  Him  from  death  ?  *  It  is  not  easy  to  decide 
as  to  Pilate's  motives.  He  had  early  offered  to  chastise 
Jesus,  and  then  release  Him;  but  this  the  multitude  re- 
fused, and  demanded  His  crucifixion.  It  does  not,  then, 
seem  probable  that  He  could  hope  that  the  mere  sight  of 
Jesus  suffering  this  punishment  could  so  awaken  their  pity 
as  to  change  their  determination.*  And  why,  if  this  were 
his  purpose,  should  Jesus  be  taken  into  the  common  hall, 
or  Pretorium,  and  subjected  to  the  insults  and  mockery 
of  the  soldiers?  We  infer,  then,  that  Pilate,  having 
yielded  to  the  priests  and  rulers,  sent  Him  to  be  scourged 
as  preliminary  to  His  crucifixion,  which  was  done  by  the 

>  War,  2. 14.  9,  and  5. 11. 1.    See  Winer,  i.  677 ;  Friedlieb,  Arch.  114. 

*  As  to  flagellation  among  the  Jews,  see  Ainsworth  on  Deut.  xxv.  1-3. 
»  Bynaeus,  Stier,  Kraffl,  Ellicott. 

4  Meyer,  Sepp,  Alford,  Jones,  Tholuck. 

•  It  is  not  certain  whether  He  was  scourged  in  the  Pretorium  or  without 
it.  The  words  of  Matthew  and  Mark  imply  the  latter;  so  Meyer,  Lange. 
But  if  He  was  scourged  but  once,  it  would  seem  from  John  xix.  4  that  it  was 
done  in  the  Pretorium ;  so  Bynaeus. 


526  THE  LIFE  OF   OUB  LORD. 

soldiers  in  their  usual  cruel  way ;  that,  beholding  Him  bloody 
from  the  scourge,  clothed  with  the  purple  robe,  and  wear- 
ing the  crown  of  thorns,  his  own  compassion  was  awakened, 
and  he  resolved  to  make  one  last  effort  to  deliver  Him  from 
death.  He  therefore  leads  Him  forth,  and  after  an  emphatic 
declaration  for  the  third  time  that  he  finds  no  fault  in  Him, 
presents  Him  to  the  people,  saying, "  Behold  the  man."  He 
hoped  that  the  sight  of  one  so  meek,  so  helpless,  so  wretch- 
ed, would  touch  the  hearts  of  all  as  it  had  touched  his  own. 
Stier  gives  rightly  the  meaning  of  his  words :  "  Is  this  man 
a  king  ?  An  insurgent  ?  A  man  to  be  feared,  or  danger- 
ous? How  innocent,  and  how  miserable!  Is  it  not 
enough  ? "  It  is  probable,  as  said  by  Jones,  that  as  He 
wore  the  crown  of  thorns  and  purple  robe,  so  He  also  bore 
in  His  hand  the  reed.  But  nothing  could  touch  the  hearts 
of  His  imbittered  enemies.  As  they  saw  Him,  the  chief 
priests  and  officers  raised  anew  the  cry,  "  Crucify  Him,  cru- 
cify Him."  It  is  not  said  that  the  people  at  large  joined  in 
it ;  and  perhaps  for  a  time,  through  fear  or  pity,  they  were 
silent. 

Angry  at  the  implacable  determination  of  the  rulers 
that  Jesus  should  be  crucified,  Pilate  tauntingly  responds 
to  the  cry,  "Take  ye  Him  and  crucify  Him,  for  I  find  no 
fault  in  Him."  Lardner  (i.  54)  paraphrases  these  words: 
"  You  must  crucify  Him,  then,  yourselves,  if  you  can  com- 
mit such  a  villany,  for  I  cannot.  He  appears  to  me  inno- 
cent, as  I  have  told  you  already,  and  I  have  now  punished 
Him  as  much  as  He  deserves."  The  Jews  now  perceived 
that  Pilate,  knowing  that  the  charge  of  sedition  was  base- 
less, and  deeply  sympathizing  with  Jesus,  would  not  put 
Him  to  death ;  and  are  compelled  to  return  to  the  original 
charge  of  blasphemy.  "We  have  a  law,  and  by  our  law  He 
ought  to  die,  because  He  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God." 
This  mention  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  made  Himself  the  Son  of 
God,  had  a  power  over  Pilate,  who  now  heard  of  it  for  the 


PILATE   YIELDS   TO   THE   THREATS   OF   THE  JEWS.       527 

first  time,  which  the  Jews  little  anticipated.  Was  then  his 
prisoner,  whose  appearance,  words,  and  conduct  had  so 
strangely  and  so  deeply  interested  him,  a  divine  being? 
Full  of  fear  he  returns  to  the  judgment  hail,  and  commands 
Jesus  to  be  brought,  and  demands,  "  Whence  art  thou  ?  " 
His  silence  at  first,  and  still  more  His  answer  afterward,  con- 
firmed Pilate  in  his  determination  to  release  Him ;  and  he 
may  probably  have  taken  some  open  step  toward  it.  But 
the  rulers  will  not  thus  give  up  their  victim.  They  begin  to 
threaten  that  if  he  release  Him  he  thereby  shows  that  he  is 
Cffisar's  enemy,  and  that  they  will  accuse  him  before  the 
emperor.  Pilate  now  perceives  the  danger  of  his  position. 
Such  an  accusation  he  must,  at  any  cost,  avoid.  His  admin- 
istration would  not,  in  many  respects,  bear  a  close  scrutiny ; 
and  the  slightest  suspicion  that  he  had  shown  favor  to  a 
claimant  of  the  Jewish  throne,  falling  into  the  ear  of  the 
jealous  and  irritable  Tiberius,  would  have  endangered,  not 
only  his  office,  but  his  life.  Such  peril  he  could  not  meet. 
The  shrewd  elders  and  priests,  who  knew  the  selfish  weak- 
ness of  his  character,  pressed  their  advantage,  and  Pilate 
dared  do  no  more.  Jesus  must  be  crucified.  He  now  pre- 
pares to  give  final  sentence.  But  he  will  first  clear  himself 
of  the  guilt  of  shedding  innocent  blood.  He  takes  water 
and  washes  his  hands  before  all,  to  show  that  he  is  clean.1 
"  Then  answered  all  the  people,  His  blood  be  on  us  and  on 
our  children."  At  this  moment,  about  to  give  sentence, 
Pilate  could  not  give  up  the  poor  satisfaction  of  mocking 
the  Jews  in  what  he  knew  well  to  be  a  most  tender  point : 
their  Messianic  hopes.  He  cries  out,  "  Behold  your  king." 
His  contemptuous  words  only  bring  back  the  fierce  re- 
sponse, "  Away  with  Him  ;  crucify  Him."  Still  more  bit- 
terly  he  repeats,  "  Shall  I  crucify  your  king  ?  "  The  answer 

»  Many  place  this  after  the  words  of  the  Jews,  "  We  have  no  king  but 
Cesar,"  (John  xix.  15;)  so  Stier.  Some  before  the  scourging  of  Jesus ;  so 
Jones, 


528  THE  LIFE  OP   OUB  LOBD. 

of  the  chief  priests,  for  the  people  are  not  said  to  have  joined 
in  it,  "  We  have  no  king  but  Caesar,"  was  an  open  renun- 
ciation of  their  allegiance  to  Jehovah,  and  of  the  covenant 
which  He  had  made  with  the  house  of  David,  (2  Sam.  vii. 
12.)  Thus  had  the  Jews  been  led,  step  by  step,  not  only  to 
reject  their  Messiah,  to  prefer  a  robber  and  murderer  before 
Him,  to  insist  mercilessly  that  He  should  be  put  to  a  most 
shameful  death,  but  even  to  accept  and  openly  proclaim  the 
Roman  emperor  as  their  king.  This  was  the  culminating 
point  of  national  apostasy. 

Some  points  presented  by  the  narrative  demand  further 
consideration.  Brief  reasons  have  been  given  for  supposing 
that  Jesus  was  scourged  but  once.  Some,  however,  would 
make  the  scourging  mentioned  by  John  (xix.  1)  a  kind  of 
judicial  torture,  or  quaestio  per  tormenta,  for  the  purpose 
of  forcing  a  confession  if  the  prisoner  were  really  guilty. 
To  this  torture  by  scourging  Pilate  subjected  Jesus,  not 
that  he  had  any  doubt  of  His  innocence,  but  that  if  no 
confession  of  guilt  were  extorted,  he  might  have  stronger 
grounds  for  setting  Him  free.1  Torture  was  customary  with 
the  Romans,  (Acts  xxii.  24,)  and  was  practised  by  Herod 
the  Great.5  But  that  Pilate  should  now  have  recourse  to  it, 
when  he  himself  knew  Jesus  to  be  innocent,  merely  that  he 
might  say  to  the  Jews  that  He  had  made  no  confession,  is 
most  improbable.  Sepp  (vi.  241)  supposes  that  the  soldiers 
regarded  the  scourging  as  intended  to  extort  a  confession, 
and  acted  accordingly,  though  Pilate  had  other  designs. 

The  person  to  be  scourged  was  bound  to  a  low  pillar, 
that,  bending  over,  the  blows  might  be  better  inflicted.  The 
pillar  to  which  the  Lord  was  bound  is  mentioned  by  Je- 
rome and  Bede,  and  others.'  There  is  now  shown  in  the 
church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  a  fragment  of  a  porphyry 

»  Hug,  cited  by  Tholuck;  Bucher,  777 ;  Kirchen,  Lex.  tL  271 ;  Friedlieb, 
831.    See,  however,  contra,  his  Archaol.  116. 

8  See  Josephus,  Antiq.  16. 10.  3  and  4.  »  Hofmann,  365. 


RECORDS   AT   BOMB   OF   THE  LOBD'S   TRTAT,,  529 

column  called  the  Column  of  the  Flagellation,  and  a  rival 
column  is  preserved  at  Rome. 

The  traditional  site  in  the  Via  Dolorosa  of  the  place 
where  Pilate  presented  Jesus  to  the  people,  or  the  Arch  of 
the  Ecc*  Homo,  has  been  recently  defended  by  Saulcy,  (ii. 
291.)  This  writer  makes  Pilate  to  have  led  Jesus  forth 
upon  the  gallery,  /fy/io,  (John  xix.  13,)  which  was  situated 
in  the  Pavement,  and  there,  for  the  second  time,  to  have 
shown  Him  to  the  people. 

The  form  of  Pilate's  sentence  is  not  given.  The  custom- 
ary form  was,  Ibis  ad  crucem,  Friedlieb  (Arch.  125)  gives 
a  sentence  pretended  by  Adrichomius  to  be  genuine,  but 
rightly  rejects  it.  Another  sentence,  said  to  have  been 
found  in  Aquila  in  Italy,  has  been  often  printed.  Another 
was  found  at  the  same  plaoe  a  few  years  since.1  Both  are 
obvious  fabrications. 

It  has  been  much  disputed  whether  Pilate  transmitted 
to  the  emperor  at  Rome  any  account  of  Christ's  trial  and 
death.  In  itself  this  is  intrinsically  probable,  for  it  seems  to 
have  been  the  custom  of  governors  of  provinces  to  send 
thither  records  of  the  more  important  events  occurring 
during  their  administration.  Thus  Philo  speaks  of  the 
"acts,"  acta,  transmitted  to  Caligula  from  Alexandria. 
That  Pilate  did  send  such  records,  appears  from  Justin  Mar- 
tyr's address  to  the  Emperor  Pius,  in  which  he  appeals  to 
them  as  proving  Christ's  miracles  and  sufferings.  Tertul- 
lian,  in  his  Apology,  also  appeals  to  them.  Eusebius,  in 
his  History,  (ii.  2,)  relates,  upon  the  authority  of  Tertullian, 
that  Tiberius,  receiving  these  acts  of  Pilate,  containing  an 
account  of  the  Lord's  resurreotion,  and  of  His  miracles,  pro- 
posed to  the  senate  that  He  should  be  ranked  among  the 
gods.  If,  however,  Pilate  really  sent  such  an  account,  we 
obtain  from  it  no  additional  particulars  respecting  the  trial 

'  See  both,  given  by  Hofmann,  866-869, 
23 


530  THE   LIFE   OF   OUB   LOBD. 

and  death  of  the  Lord.  No  writer  gives  any  quotation  from 
it ;  from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that  none,  even  of  those 
who  refer  to  it,  had  ever  seen  it.  The  supposition  that  Pi- 
late's records  had  been  destroyed  by  the  senate  or  emper- 
or before  the  time  of  Constantine,  in  order  to  remove  thia 
proof  of  Christianity,  is  not  very  probable.1 

Some  have  attempted  to  cast  additional  light  upon  the 
evangelical  narratives  by  referring  to  the  Apocryphal  Gos- 
pel of  Nicodemus.  But  from  it  very  little  of  value  can  be 
drawn.3 


Friday,  15th  Nisan,  783.     a.  d.  30. 

Delivered  by  Pilate  into  the  hands  of  soldiers,  He    John  xix.  16-24. 
is  led  without  the  city  to  a  place  called  Golgotha,     Matt,  xxvii.  82-88. 
bearing  His  cross.     Falling  exhausted  under  the  bur-    Mark  xv.  21  -27. 
den,  the  soldiers  compelled  Simon  of  Cyrene,  whom    Lukjc  xxiii.  26-84. 
they  met,  to  bear  it  with  Jesus.     To  some  women 
following  Him  and  weeping,  He  speaks  words  of  ad- 
monition, and  foretells  the  judgments  about  to  come 
upon  Jerusalem.     After  He  had  been  affixed  to  the 
cross,  they  gave  Him  wine  mingled  with  gall,  but  He 
would  not  drink.     Two  malefactors   were  crucified 
with  Him,  one  on  the  right  hand  and  one  on  the  left 
As  they  were  nailing  Him  to  the  cross,  He  prays  to 
His  Father  to  forgive  them.     The  inscription  placed 
over  His  head  displeased  the  Jews,  but  Pilate  refused 
to  change  it.    The  soldiers  who  kept  watch  at  the 
foot  of  the  cross,  divide  His  garments  among  them- 
selves. 

It  was,  according  to  John,  (xix.  14,)  "  about  the  sixth 
hour,"  topa  8c  0K7€i  ckttj,  when  Pilate  sat  down  in  the  judg- 
ment seat  to  pronounce  final  sentence.     But  this  seems  in 

*  See  Jones,  Canon  N.  Test.  ii.  330 ;  Pearson  on  Creed,  art.  4  ;  Jams,  375. 
9  See  Tischendorf  s  Pilati  Circa  Christum  Judicium.     Lipsiae,  1856. 


Hon:   OF  THE  CRUCIFIXION.  531 

direct  opposition  to  Mark,  (xv.  25,)  "  And  it  was  the  third 
hour,  and  they  crucified  Him."  Against  John's  statement, 
is  that  also  of  all  the  Synoptists,  that  there  was  darkness 
from  the  sixth  hour  over  all  the  land  till  the  ninth  hour, 
(Matt,  xxvil  45 ;  Mark  xv.  33 ;  Luke  xxiii.  44.)  This 
darkness  did  not  begin  till  Jesus  had  been  for  some  time 
nailed  to  the  cross.  Many  efforts  have  been  made  to  har- 
monize this  discrepancy.1  That  change  of  punctuation 
which  places  a  period  at  the  word  "  preparation,"  (in  John 
xix.  14,)  and  joins  "of  the  Passover"  with  "hour,''  mak- 
ing it  to  read,  "  And  it  was  the  preparation,  and  about  the 
sixth  hour  of  the  Passover,"  has  been  already  spoken  of  in 
another  connection.  It  is  forced  and  untenable.  Some 
would  change  "  sixth  "  into  u  third,"  and  thus  bring  John 
into  harmony  with  Mark,  regarding  the  former  as  an  error 
of  copyists.*  But  the  weight  of  authority  is  in  favor  of  the 
present  reading.'  Light  foot  finds  a  solution  in  his  inter- 
pretation of  Mark,  who  does  not  say,  "  it  was  the  third 
hour  when  they  crucified  Him,"  but  "it  was  the  third 
hour  and  they  crucified  Him."  It  notes  that  the  fathers 
of  the  Sanhedrim  should  have  been  present  at  the  third 
hour  in  the  temple,  offering  their  thank  offerings.  "  When 
the  third  hour  now  was,  and  was  passed,  yet  they  omit- 
ted not  to  prosecute  His  conviction."  This  is  wholly  un- 
satisfactory. Some  would  make  the  "preparation"  of 
John,  irapaa-K€vrjy  to  denote  not  the  whole  day,  but  that  part 
of  it  immediately  preceding  the  Sabbath,  or  from  3-6  p.  m. 
Thus  John's  meaning  would  be,  it  was  the  sixth  hour  be- 
fore the  commencement  of  the  preparation,  or  about  9  a.  m., 
which  would  agree  with  Mark.  Others  would  read  it, 
"  about  the  sixth  hour,  or  noon,  the  preparation  time  of 

1  For  a  full  account  of  early  opinions,  nee  Bynaeus,  iii.  178. 
•  Bynaeus ;  Robinson,  Har.  226,  who  refers  to  Griesbach  and  Wetstein ; 
Luthardt,  Bloomfield. 

>  Teschendorf,  Alford,  Greswell,  Wieseler,  Meyer. 


532  THE  LIFE    OF   OUB   LORD. 

Passover  day  commenced."  Both  these  constructions  are 
arbitrary.  Some  would  make  the  term  hour,  wpa,  to  be 
used  by  John  in  a  large  sense.  The  day  was  divided  into 
four  periods  of  three  hours  each,  and  to  each  of  these 
periods  was  the  term  hour  applied.  Thus  the  first  hour 
was  from  6-9,  the  third  from  9-12,  the  sixth  from  12-3, 
the  ninth  from  3-6.  The  third  hour  of  Mark  was  from 
9-12.  During  this  period,  and  probably  at  the  beginning 
of  it,  Jesus  was  crucified.  John,  in  his  statement,  refers  to 
the  end  of  it.1  But  this  is  unsupported  by  usage.  Many 
suppose  that  John  reckons  the  hours  according  to  the 
Roman  mode,  from  midnight.  Thus  his  sixth  hour  would 
be  6  a.  m.  Some,  as  Jones,  so  modify  this  as  to  make  the 
sixth  hour  to  continue  till  nine.  In  regard  to  this,  New- 
come  remarks,2  "  That  the  Romans  ever  reckoned  their 
hours  in  the  manner  that  we  do,  from  midnight  or  from 
midday,  is  destitute  of  proof.  Though  other  matters  were 
regulated  by  the  civil  computation,  the  hours  were  counted 
according  to  the  natural  day,  from  six  in  the  morning  to 
six  in  the  evening,  and  again  from  six  in  the  evening  to  six 
in  the  morning."  Wieseler,  (414,)  who  admits  that  the  Ro- 
mans in  general  reckoned  from  sunrise,  yet  finds  an  excep- 
tion in  this  case,  because  the  15th  Nisan,  as  distinguished 
from  the  Passover,  began  at  midnight,  (Exod.  xii.  29.) 
Upon  this  one  day  John  could  reckon  the  hours  from  mid- 
night. But  this  is  certainly  most  improbable,  and  the 
Roman  computation  being  the  same  with  the  Jewish, 
nothing  is  gained.  Greswell,  therefore,  after  Townson, 
makes  John  to  reckon  after  our  own  mode,  from  mid- 
night ;  but  this  does  not  fit  the  other  notices  of  time  in 
his  Gospel,  and  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  all  could  have 
been  done  by  so  early  an  hour.3 

1  So  Godwyn,  Moses  and  Aaron,  81 ;  Campbell,  notes  in  loco;  Kraffi,  147. 

'  Har.  notes  in  loco. 

»  See,  however,  Ewald,  (v.  483),  who  makes  Jesus  to  have  been  brought 


SECOND  SESSION   OP  THE  SANHEDRIM.  533 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  sixth  hour  of  John  was 
the  twelfth  hour  with  us,  or  midday.  But  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  he  says,  "about  the  sixth  hour,"  o>9  ckt^,1 
which  implies  that  he  gives  no  exact  note  of  the  time. 
It  is  rendered  by  Norton,  "it  was  toward  noon,"  and 
this  very  well  expresses  the  meaning.  Mark's  words,  "  It 
was  the  third  hour,  and  they  crucified  Him,"  need  not 
be  taken  as  a  specific  designation  of  the  hour  when  He  was 
nailed  to  the  cross,  but  as  marking  the  time  when,  the  sen- 
tence having  been  pronounced,  He  was  given  up  to  the 
soldiers,  and  the  preparatory  steps  to  the  crucifixion  began. 
Our  exact  divisions  of  time  were  wholly  unknown  to  the 
ancients.9 

If  the  Sanhedrim  held  its  second  session  about  sunrise, 
as  the  statements  of  the  Evangelists  lead  us  to  suppose,  the 
events  subsequent  down  to  the  crucifixion,  must  have  occu- 
pied several  hours.  The  time  when  Jesus  was  led  to  the 
hall  of  judgment  is  noted  by  John,  (xviii.  28,)  "  and  it  was 
early,"  t\v  Sc  irpo*.  If  this  denote  the  fourth  watch  of  the 
night,  it  was  from  3-6  a.  m.  The  usual  hour  for  opening 
judicial  proceedings  among  the  Romans  was  9  a.  m.,  and 
probably  Pilate  now  a  little  anticipated  the  time.  The 
crucifixion  itself  was  during  the  interval  from  nine  to 
twelve. 

The  place  of  the  crucifixion  will  be  hereafter  considered 
when  we  inquire  where  the  Lord  was  buried.  From  Heb. 
xiii.  1 2  it  appears  that  the  cross  was  placed  without  the 
gate  ;  and  from  the  Evangelists,  that  it  was  called  Calvary, 
or  in  the  Hebrew,  Golgotha,  meaning  the  place  of  a  skull ; 
and  that  it  was  not  far  from  the  public  street.  Jesus  was 
conducted  thither  by  the  soldiers,  Pilate  not  having  lictors, 
to  whom   such   duty   specially   belonged.    According  to 

to  Pilate  an  hour  before  sunrise,  (John  xviii.  2S,  vpaH,)  the  sentence  given 
at  6  a.  *.,  (John  six.  14,)  and  the  crucifixion  at  9,  (Mark  xv.  25.) 
»  Tischendorf.  *  See  Pauly,  Real.  Encyc,  ii.  1017,  art  Dies. 


534  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

Roman  custom,  He  bore  his  own  cross;  but,  wearied  by  the 
labors  of  the  night,  and  faint  from  the  scourging  and  abuse 
of  His  enemies,  He  sank  beneath  the  burden.  At  this 
juncture,  meeting  a  man  of  Cyrene,  named  Simon,  they 
compelled  him  to  assist  Jesus  in  bearing  it,  (Luke  xxiii.  26.) 
According  to  some,  he  bore  it  alone.  Probably  he  was  met 
just  as  they  were  going  out  of  the  city  gate,  and  he  was 
entering  in,  (Matt,  xxvii.  32.)  Of  this  Simon  little  is  known, 
except  that  he  was  a  Cyrenian,  and  the  father  of  Alexander 
and  Rufus,  (Mark  xv.  21.)  Many  suppose  him  a  slave 
from  the  fact  that,  while  so  many  Jews  must  have  been 
present,  they  were  passed  by,  and  he  was  seized  upon  to 
perform  this  degrading  office.1  The  reason,  however,  of 
his  selection  may  simply  have  been  that,  chancing  to  be 
close  at  hand  when  Jesus  sank  down  from  weariness,  they 
compel  him  to  assist.  Others  suppose  him  to  have  been  a 
disciple,  and  on  that  account  selected ;  but  this  fact  could 
scarcely  have  been  known  to  the  soldiers.  That  he  subse- 
quently became  a  disciple  is  more  probable.  Following 
the  Lord  upon  the  way  to  the  place  of  crucifixion  was 
"  a  great  company  of  people  and  of  women,  which  also 
bewailed  and  lamented  Him,"  (Luke  xxiii.  27.)  These 
women  do  not  seem  to  have  been  those  who  followed  Him 
from  Galilee,  but  those  of  the  city,  or  the  parts  adjacent, 
who  had  seen  Him,  or  heard  Him,  and  now  sympathized 
with  Him.2 

1  So  Meyer. 

3  For  a  minute  account  of  the  Lord's  progress  from  the  judgment  hall  to 
the  cross,  along  the  Via  Dolorosa,  and  the  traditionary  incidents,  see  Hof- 
mann,  371.  "  Whether  the  Via  Dolorosa  receives  a  right  designation  or 
not,  we  do  not  know.  It  was  up  part  of  its  ascent,  or  that  of  its  neigh- 
borhood, that,  in  all  probability,  Christ  bore  His  cross,"  (Wilson,  i.  42f>.) 
Robinson  finds  in  the  fourteenth  century  the  earliest  allusion  to  the  Via 
Dolorosa,  (i.  233,  note.)  For  full  details  as  to  the  traditional  stations  along 
this  way,  see  Tobler,  Top.  i.  262,  Ac.  But  if  the  trial  of  the  Lord  was  at 
the  palace  of  Herod  on  Mount  Sion,  He  could  not  have  passed  along  the 
Via  Dolorosa. 


JESUS   IS   NilLED  TO   THE  CROSS.  535 

It  is  uncertain  whether  the  cross  was  placed  in  the 
ground  before  the  victim  was  nailed  to  it,  or  after ;  but  the 
former  is  most  probable.1  With  Jesus  were  crucified  two 
malefactors,  respecting  whom  we  know  nothing,  but  who 
may  have  been  companions  of  Barabbas.*  An  early  tradition 
makes  them  to  have  been  two  robbers,  named  Titus  and 
Dumachus,  whom  Jesus  met  in  Egypt ;  and  it  is  said  that 
He  then  predicted  that  both  should  be  crucified  with  Him.' 
His  position  between  the  two  was  probably  owing  to  the 
malice  of  the  priests ;  though  the  soldiers  may  have  done  it 
in  mockery  of  his  kingly  claims.  Greswell,  (iii.  246,)  from 
John  xix.  32,  33,  conjectures  that  the  crosses  of  the  two 
malefactors  looked  to  the  west,  but  that  of  Jesus  to 
the  east.  Tradition  makes  His  to  have  looked  to  the 
west.4 

The  offering  of  vinegar  mingled  with  gall  (Matthew 
and  Mark)  seems  to  have  been  before  the  nailing  to  the 
cross.  The  object  of  this  was  to  stupefy  the  victim,  so  that 
the  pain  might  not  be  so  acutely  felt.  This,  however,  was 
a  Jewish,  not  a  Roman  custom,  though  now  permitted  by 
the  Romans.*  Lightfoot  (on  Matt,  xxvii.  34)  quotes  from 
the  Rabbins,  "To  those  that  were  to  be  executed  they 
gave  a  grain  of  myrrh,  infused  in  wine,  to  drink,  that  their 
understanding  might  be  disturbed,  or  they  lose  their  senses, 
as  it  is  said,  *  Give  strong  drink  to  them  that  are  ready  to 
die,  and  wine  to  them  that  are  of  sorrowful  heart.'  "  This 
mixture  the  Lord  tasted,  but,  knowing  its  purpose,  would 
not  drink  it.  He  would  not  permit  the  clearness  of  His 
mind  to  be  thus  disturbed,  and,  in  the  full  possession  of 
consciousness,  would  endure  all  the  agonies  of  the  cross. 
Meyer  and  Alford  find  a  contradiction  between  Matthew 

»  Friedlieb,  Arch.  142 ;  Greswell,  iii.  245. 

•  As  to  the  abundance  of  thieves  and  robbers  at  this  time,  and  its  causes, 
tee  Lightfoot  on  Matt  xxvii.  88. 

*  Hofmann,  176.  *  Hofmann,  876.  •  Friedlieb,  Archaol.  140.   / 


536  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

and  Mark,  because  the  former  speaks  of  "  vinegar  mingled 
with  gall;"  the  latter,  of  "  wine  mingled  with  myrrh."  But 
it  is  well  said  by  Alexander,  that  "  as  the  wine  used  by  the 
soldiers  was  a  cheap  sour  wine,  little,  if  at  all,  superior  to 
vinegar,  and  as  myrrh,  gall,  and  other  bitter  substances 
are  put  for  the  whole  class,  there  is  really  no  difference  in 
these  passages."  l 

Lightfoot  supposes  that  it  was  not  the  usual  mixture, 
wine  and  frankincense,  or  myrrh,  but,  for  greater  mockage, 
and  out  of  rancor,  vinegar  and  gall.  Townsend '  supposes 
that  three  potions  were  offered  him:  the  first,  vinegar 
mingled  with  gall,  in  malice  and  derision,  which  He  refused ; 
then  the  intoxicating  draught,  which  He  also  refused ; 
then  the  sour  wine,  or  posca,  which  He  drank.  Another 
supposition  is,  that  benevolent  women  gave  him  the  wine 
and  myrrh,  and  at  the  same  time  the  soldiers  brought  the 
vinegar  and  gall. 

Crucifixion  was  a  punishment  used  by  the  Grecians, 
Komans,  Egyptians,  and  many  other  nations,  but  not  by 
the  Jews.  It  was  indeed  permitted  by  the  law  to  hang  a 
man  on  a  tree,  but  only  after  he  had  been  put  to  death, 
(Deut.  xxi.  22,  23.)  Upon  this,  Maimonides,  quoted  by 
Ainsworth,  remarks :  "  After  they  are  stoned  to  death,  they 
fasten  a  piece  of  timber  in  the  earth,  and  out  of  it  there 
crosseth  a  piece  of  wood ;  then  they  tie  both  his  hands  one 
to  another,  and  hang  them  near  unto  the  setting  of  the 
sun."  The  form  of  the  cross  varied.  Sometimes  it  was  in 
the  shape  of  the  letter  X.  This  was  called  crux  decussata. 
Sometimes  it  was  in  the  shape  of  the  letter  T.  This  was 
called  crux  commissa.  Sometimes  it  was  in  the  form  follow- 
ing: -f-.  This  was  called  crux  immissa.  Tradition  affirms 
that  the  cross  on  which  the  Lord  suffered  was  of  the  latter 

1  That  xoA-tj,  gall,  is  used  in  the  Septuagint  for  various  kinds  of  bitter 
stuffs,  see  Winer,  i.  350 ;  Friedlieb,  Arch.  141. 
•  Part  vii.  note  23 


CTBCUMSTANCES   OP   THE   CRUCIFIXION.  537 

kind ;  and  early  painters  have  so  represented  it.1  The  up- 
right post,  or  beam,  was  by  no  means  lofty,  generally  only 
so  high  as  to  raise  the  person  a  few  inches  from  the  ground. 
Midway  upon  it  was  a  little  projection,  sedile,  upon  which 
the  person  sat,  that  the  whole  weight  of  the  body  might 
not  fall  upon  the  arms,  and  they  thus  be  torn  from  the 
nails.  The  arms  were  sometimes  tied  with  cords,  perhaps 
to  prevent  this  pressure  upon  the  nails,  or  that  the  nailing 
might  be  the  more  easily  effected.  The  head  was  not 
fastened.  Whether  the  feet  were  generally  nailed,  has 
been  much  disputed."  That  the  Lord's  feet  were  thus 
nailed,  may  be  inferred  from  Luke  xxiv.  39,  40.  Ap- 
pearing to  the  Eleven  upon  the  evening  following  His 
resurrection,  He  said  to  them:  "Behold  my  hands  and 
my  feet,  that  it  is  I  myself;  handle  me  and  see,  for  a 
spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have.  And 
when  He  had  thus  spoken,  He  showed  them  His  hands  and 
His  feet."  This  showing  of  the  hands  and  feet  could  not 
be  simply  to  convince  them  that  His  body  was  a  real  body, 
and  not  a  mere  phantasm ;  but  had  also  the  end  to  convince 
them  of  His  identity.  "  It  is  I  myself;  and  in  proof  of  this, 
look  at  the  prints  of  the  nails  remaining  in  my  hands  and 
my  feet."  John  (xx.  20)  says,  "He  showed  unto  them 
II i^  hands  and  His  side."  From  both  narratives,  it  follows 
that  He  showed  them  the  wounds  in  His  hands,  His  side, 
and  His  feet.  That,  at  his  second  appearing  to  the  Eleven, 
He  spake  to  Thomas  only  of  His  hands  and  His  side,  is 
to  be  explained  as  giving  all  the  proof  that  that  sceptical 
r.postle  had  demanded,  (v.  25.)  Alford  gives  a  little  differ- 
ent explanation :  "  He  probably  does  not  name  the  feet, 

1  Ilofrnann,  372.  See  By naeus,  (iii.  225,)  and  Didron's  Christian  Iconogra- 
phy, (Trans,  i.  874,)  for  a  discussion  of  the  various  forms  of  the  cross. 

*  In  neg.,  see  Paulus,  (Handbuch,  iii.  66(J,)  who  discusses  this  point  at 
great  length;  Winer,  i.  678;  aff.,  Friedlieb,  144;  Meyer  on  Matt,  xxvii.  85. 
Alford,  "  not  always,  nor  perhaps  generally,  though  certainly  not  seldom." 

23* 


538  THE  LIFE   OP   OUR  LORD. 

merely  because  the  hands  and  side  would  more  naturally 
offer  themselves  to  his  examination  than  the  feet,  to  which 
he  must  stoop."  That  the  feet  were  nailed,  has  been  the 
current  view  of  commentators.1 

It  has  been  questioned  whether  the  feet  of  the  Lord 
were  separately  nailed,  or  one  nail  was  used  for  both. 
According  to  Hofmann,  most  of  the  painters  have  repre- 
sented the  feet  as  lying  one  over  the  other,  and  both  pene- 
trated by  the  same  nail.'  Didron  (Christian  Iconography) 
observes :  "  Previous  to  the  thirteenth  century,  Christ  was 
attached  to  the  cross  by  three  or  four  nails  indifferently. 
After  the  thirteenth  century,  the  practice  of  putting  only 
three  nails  was  definitively  in  the  ascendant."  On  the 
other  hand,  early  tradition  speaks  of  four  nails.'  It  is  pos- 
sible that  the  crown  of  thorns  remained  upon  His  head,  as 
represented  by  the  painters.  Matthew  and  Mark,  who  both 
speak  of  taking  off  the  purple  robe,  say  nothing  of  the 
soldiers  removing  the  crown  of  thorns. 
,  The  prayer,  "  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not 
what  they  do,"  given  only  by  Luke,  (xxiii.  34,)  was  prob- 
ably spoken  while  the  soldiers  were  nailing  him  to  the 
cross,  or  immediately  after.  It  doubtless  embraced  all 
who  took  part  in  His  crucifixion — not  only  the  soldiers,  who 
were  compelled  to  obey  the  orders  given  them,  but  the 
Jewish  priests  and  elders,  and  the  Roman  governor — all 
who  had  caused  His  sufferings.  The  garments  of  the  cru- 
cified belonged  to  the  soldiers  as  their  spoil.  After  the 
four  appointed  to  this  duty  had  divided  His  garments,  they 
sat  down  to  watch  the  body. 

It  was  customary  among  the  Romans  to  affix  to  the 
cross  an  inscription,  tm-Aos,  atria,  in  order  to  point  out  to 
all  the  nature  of  the  offence.   Whether  it  was  borne  before 

1  Tholuck,  Stier,  Lange,  Ebrard,  Ewald,  Olshausen. 
■  See,  however,  Friedlieb,  Archaol.  145,  note. 
*  See  Winer,  i.  678 ;  Sepp,  vi.  833 ;  Ellicott,  858. 


THE  ENEMIES   OF   JESUS   DERIDE   HIM.  539 

the  criminal,  or  upon  his  neck,  or  was  attached  to  the 
cross,  is  uncertain  ;  but,  on  reaching  the  place  of  execution, 
it  was  set  up  over  his  head.  As  this  inscription  is  differ- 
ently given  by  the  Evangelists,  it  has  been  conjectured  that 
it  was  differently  written  in  the  Greek,  Latin,  and  Hebrew.1 
Pilate,  who  as  judge  prepared  the  inscription,  took  occa- 
sion to  gratify  his  scorn  of  the  Jews,  who  had  so  thwarted 
him ;  and  his  short  and  decisive  answer,  when  he  was  re- 
quested by  them  to  change  it,  shows  the  bitterness  of  his 
resentment.  Jones  sees  in  this  a  providential  acknowledg- 
ment of  Jesus,  by  public  authority,  as  King  of  the  Jews. 
Greswell  supposes  this  request  may  have  been  made  before 
the  arrival  at  Calvary. 


Friday,  15th  Nisan,  7th  April,  783.    a.  d.  30. 

While  hanging  upon  the  cross,  the  multitudes,     Matt,  xxvii.  89-44. 
as  they  passed  by,  reviled  and  derided  Him.     In    Mark  xv.  29-82. 
this  mockery  the  high  priests  and  scribes  and  elders,     Lukk  xxiii.  86-48. 
and  even  the  two  malefactors,  joined.     From  the 
cross,  beholding  His  mother  standing  near  by  with    John  xix.  25-27. 
John,  He  commends  him  to  her  as  her  son,  and  her 
to  him  as  his  mother ;  and  John  takes  her  to  his 
own  house.     Darkness  now  overspreads  the  land    Matt,  xxvii.  45-56. 
from  the  sixth  to  the  ninth  hour,  and  during  this    Mark  xv.  38-41. 
period   He  suffers  in  silence.     Afterward  drink  is     Lckk  xxiii.  44-49. 
given  Him,  and  after  He  had  drunk  He  commends    John  xix.  28-80. 
His  spirit  to  God,  and  dies.     At  this  moment  the 
veil  of  the  temple  is  rent,  the  earth  shakes,  the  rocks 
are  rent,  and  graves  opened.     The  centurion  bears 
witness  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  women  of 
Galilee  go  home  smiting  their  breasts. 

The  place  of  crucifixion  being  near  the  city,  and  great 
multitudes  being  gathered  at  the  feast,  it  was  natural  that 

»  8ee  Pearson  on  Creed,  art.  4 ;  A.  Clarke  on  Matt,  xxvii.  87. 


540  THE  LIFE  OE   OUR  LORD. 

many  should  come  to  look  upon  Him,  whom  all  knew  by 
reputation,  and  most  in  person.  From  the  time  of  the 
crucifixion  to  the  time  when  the  darkness  began,  sufficient 
time  elapsed  to  allow  His  enemies,  who  hastened  to  the 
spot,  to  behold  Him  upon  the  cross.  Matthew  (xxvii. 
39-44)  divides  those  who  reviled  Him  into  three  classes :  the 
rabble,  or  passers  by  ;  the  chief  priests,  elders,  and  scribes ; 
and  the  malefactors.  (So  Mark  xv.  29-32.)  Luke  says, 
that  "  the  rulers  with  the  people  derided  Him,"  which  im- 
plies that  the  rulers  began  the  mockery.  He  adds,  that 
the  soldiers  also  "  mocked  Him,  coming  to  Him,  and  offer- 
ing Him  vinegar."  Some,  as  Stier,  would  identify  this 
with  the  offer  to  Him  of  the  mixed  wine  as  He  was  about 
to  be  nailed  to  the  cross ;  some,  as  Lichtenstein,  to  the 
giving  of  vinegar  just  before  His  death.  Most  probably, 
however,  it  is  to  be  distinguished  from  these,  and  refers  to 
something  done  a  little  before  the  darkness  began ;  perhaps, 
as  the  soldiers  were  eating  their  dinner  near  the  cross.1 
The  vinegar  was  doubtless  the  sour  wine,  or  posca,  which 
they  usually  drank.  Their  offers  were  in  derision,  no  wine 
being  actually  given. 

It  is  not  certain  whether  both  of  the  malefactors  reviled 
Him,  or  but  one.  Matthew  and  Mark  speak  of  both ;  Luke 
of  but  one.  According  to  some,  both  joined  at  first  in  the 
general  derision ;  but,  beholding  the  godlike  patience  and 
forbearance  of  Jesus,  and  knowing  on  what  grounds  He 
was  condemned,  one  repents,  and  begins  to  reprove  his 
more  wicked  companion.'  The  obvious  objection,  however, 
to  this  is,  that  the  first  act  of  one  so  converted  could 
scarcely  be  to  reprove  in  another  what  he  had  but  a  few 
moments  before  been  guilty  of  himself.  This,  perhaps,  is 
more  plausible  than  sound.  Most,  after  Augustine,  sup- 
pose that  Matthew  and  Mark  speak  in  general  terms  of 

•  Greswell,  Alford.  ,  So,  early,  many ;  recently,  Lange. 


JESUS   COMMENDS   HIS   MOTHEE  TO   JOHN.  541 

them  as  a  class  of  persons  that  joined  in  deriding  Jesus,  but 
without  meaning  to  say  that  both  actually  derided  Him.1 
At  what  time  the  words  were  spoken  by  the  Lord  to  the 
penitent  thie£  we  are  not  told.  Most  place  them  before 
His  words  to  His  mother  and  to  John,  (John  xix.  25-27.) a 
They  were  thus  the  second  words  spoken  from  the  cross. 

We  cannot  determine  whether  the  mother  of  Jesus,  or 
any  of  the  women  that  followed  Him  from  Galilee,  or  any 
of  the  apostles,  were  present  at  the  time  He  was  nailed  to 
the  cross ;  but  if  not  there,  some  of  them  soon  after  came, 
doubtless  hoping  to  comfort  Him  by  their  presence.  For  a 
time,  they  would  naturally  stand  at  a  distance,  till  the  first 
outbreaks  of  anger  and  mockery  were  past,  and  His  chief 
enemies,  satiated  with  the  spectacle,  had  withdrawn.  The 
statement  of  the  Synoptists,  (Matt,  xxvii.  55,  56  ;  Mark  xv. 
40,  41  ;  Luke  xxiii.  49,)  that  His  acquaintance  and  the 
women  that  followed  Him  from  Galilee  stood  afar  off^ 
seems  to  refer  to  a  later  period,  and  after  the  darkness ;  per- 
haps, to  the  moment  of  His  death.  The  incident  narrated 
by  John  may  thus  have  been  a  little  before  the  darkness 
began ;  and  after  this  the  disciples,  terrified  by  it  and  the 
signs  that  attended  His  death,  did  not  dare  approach  the 
cross.  Krafil,  however,  (150,)  supposes  that  it  was  after 
the  darkness  that  His  mother  and  John,  with  the  other 
women,  approached  Him,  and  that  the  Synoptists  refer  to 
an  earlier  period. 

According  to  many,  John  at  once  took  Mary  to  his 
home,  or  the  house  he  was  occupying  during  the  feast; 
for  it  does  not  appear  otherwise  that  he  had  any  house  in 
Jerusalem  of  his  own.*     A  confirmation  of  this  is  found  in 


1  Ebrard,  Da  Costa,  Liechtenstein.  Meyer  finds  two  traditions;  and  Al- 
ford,  that  Matthew  and  Mark  report  more  generally  and  less  accurately  than 
Luke.    For  a  statement  of  opinions,  see  Bynaeus,  iii.  867. 

*  Ebrard,  Stier,  Da  Costa,  Greswell. 

*  Townaon,  Greswell,  Stier,  Meyer. 


542  THE  LIFE   OF   OUK   LORD. 

the  fact  that  the  Synoptists  do  not  mention  her  name 
among  those  that  beheld  afar  off  at  the  hour  of  His  death. 
It  has,  therefore,  been  inferred  that  Jesus,  in  his  compas- 
sion, would  spare  her  the  pain  of  seeing  His  dying  agonies, 
and  so  provides  that  she  be  taken  away.1  But  it  may  be 
questioned  whether  the  words,  "  And  from  that  hour  that 
disciple  took  her  unto  his  own  house,"  mean  any  more 
than  that  ever  after  this  she  was  a  member  of  John's 
household,  and  was  treated  by  him  as  a  mother."  But  it 
John  then  led  Mary  away  from  the  place  of  crucifixion,  he 
must  afterward  have  returned,  as  he  declares  himself  to 
have  been  an  eye-witness  of  the  piercing  of  the  side,  and 
the  flowing  out  of  the  blood  and  water,  (xix.  35.)  Whether 
he  was  the  only  apostle  present  at  the  Lord's  death,  is 
matter  of  conjecture.  This  is  supposed  by  Stier ;  but  there 
is  no  good  reason  why  others,  if  not  daring  to  approach 
near,  should  not  have  looked  on  from  a  distance. 

That  the  darkness  was  no  natural  darkening  of  the  sun, 
but  a  supernatural  event,  is  recognized  by  all  who  do  not 
wholly  deny  the  supernatural  element  in  the  Gospel  nar- 
ratives. The  attempt  to  bring  it  into  connection  with  the 
eclipse  mentioned  by  Phlegon  of  Tralles,  has  been  already 
mentioned  ;  and  that  it  could  have  been  caused  in  such  a 
way  is  disproved  by  the  fact  that  it  was  then  full  moon. 
The  attempt  of  Seyffarth  to  show  that  the  Jews  might  then 
have  kept  the  Passover  on  the  25th  March,  finds  no  de- 
fenders.* Some,  however,  would  connect  it  with  the  earth- 
quake, and  explain  it  as  the  deep  gloom  that  not  unfre- 
quently  precedes  such  convulsions  of  nature.4  But  this 
supposes  that  the  earthquake  was  a  mere  natural  event, 
whereas  this  also  was  plainly  extraordinary.  The  darkness 
began  at  the  sixth  hour,  or  twelve  a.  m.,  and  continued  till 
the  ninth,  or  three  p.  m.     The  forms  of  expression,  "  over 

i  Bengel.  a  Luthardt,  ii.  421 ;  Lichtenstein,  448. 

8  See  Winer,  ii.  482.  *  Paulus,  Handbuch,  iii.  764. 


DARKNESS  OVKB  ALL  THE  LAND.  543 

all  the  land,"  iraaav  -rqv  yyjv,  (Matthew,)  u  over  the  whole 
land,"  o\rjv  -rjv  yrjvy  (Mark  and  Luke,)  do  not  determine  how 
far  the  darkness  extended.  Many  would  confine  it  to  the 
land  of  Judea,  as  our  version  does,  except  in  Luke,  where 
it  is  rendered,  "  over  all  the  earth."  '  If,  however,  it  ex- 
tended beyond  Judea,  the  phrase  "  whole  earth  "  need  not 
be  taken  in  its  most  literal  sense,  but  is  to  be  regarded  as 
a  general  expression,  embracing  the  countries  adjacent." 
Some,  however,  would  extend  it  over  all  that  part  of  the 
earth  on  which  the  sun  was  then  shining.' 

That  during  this  period  of  darkness  many  of  the  by- 
standers should  have  left  the  place  of  crucifixion  and  re- 
turned to  the  city,  is  probable,  though  not  stated.  Stier, 
however,  affirms,  U  No  man  dares  to  go  away,  all  are  laid 
under  a  spell ;  others,  rather,  are  attracted  to  the  place." 
But  when  we  consider  that  the  Lord's  enemies  would 
naturally  construe  this  darkness  as  a  sign  of  God's  anger 
against  Him,  if  they  gave  it  any  supernatural  character, 
any  such  fear  can  scarce  be  attributed  to  them ;  nor  does  it 
appear  in  their  subsequent  conduct.  That  some  of  the 
spectators  remained,  appears  from  Matthew's  words,  (xxvii. 
47,)  that  there  were  some  standing  there  when  He  called 
for  Elias.  (See  also  Luke  xxiii.  48.)  It  is  probable,  though 
not  explicitly  stated,  that  the  darkness  dispersed  a  few 
moments  before  the  Lord's  death,  and  that  the  returning 
light  emboldened  His  enemies  to  renew  their  mockeries.4 

The  cry  of  Jesus,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me  ?  "  was  about  the  ninth  hour ;  either  a  little 
before  the  cessation  of  the  darkness,*  or  just  after  its  cessa- 
tion.*    So  far  as  appears,  during  the  three  hours  of  gloom, 

1  So  Ebrard,  Olshausen,  A.  Clarke ;   Norton,  who  renders  it,  "  over  the 
whole  country." 

•  Meyer,  Lange. 

*  So  Alford,  who  makes  the  fact  of  the  darkness  at  Jerusalem  all  that  the 
Evangelists  testify  to  as  within  their  personal  knowledge. 

«  Stier,  Lichtenstein.  *  .Stier,  Ellicott.  •  Greswell. 


544  THE  LIFE   OF   0TJB   LORD. 

the  Lord  was  silent,  and  doubtless  all  were  silent  around 
Him.  But  by  whom  were  His  words  understood,  as  a  call 
for  Elias  ?  From  the  similarity  of  sound,  the  Roman  sol- 
diers might  have  so  misunderstood  Him;  but  it  is  not 
probable  that  they  knew  much  of  the  current  Jewish  ex- 
pectations respecting  Elias  as  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah. 
Lightfoot  explains  it,  that  the  word  "  Eli "  is  not  properly 
Syriac,  and  thus  was  strange  to  the  Syrian  ear,  and  de- 
ceived the  standers  by.  But  such  a  misunderstanding  on 
the  part  of  the  Jews,  whether  they  were  from  Judea  or 
from  other  lands,  is  not  easily  credible.  Some,  however, 
affirm  that  the  Jews,  terrified  by  the  darkness,  now  began 
to  fear  that  the  day  of  God's  judgment  was  actually  at 
hand;  and,  in  their  superstitious  terror,  naturally  inter- 
preted Christ's  words  as  a  call  for  him,  the  prophet,  whose 
coming  was  closely  connected  in  their  minds  with  the  great 
day  of  God.1  But  this  is  not  consistent  with  what  follows. 
The  general  view,  therefore,  seems  to  be  the  right  one, 
that  they  wilfully  perverted  His  meaning,  and  made  the 
cry  of  distress  an  occasion  of  new  insult  and  ridicule.' 

In  immediate  connection  with  the  words  of  the  by- 
standers, "  this  man  calleth  for  Elias,"  one  of  them  is  said 
by  Matthew  and  Mark  to  run  and,  taking  a  sponge  and 
filling  it  with  vinegar,  to  give  Him  to  drink.  This  act, 
which  in  those  Evangelists  seems  unexplained,  may  have 
followed  from  His  words,  which  are  recorded  only  by 
John,  (xix.  28,)  "  I  thirst."  We  may  thus  arrange  the 
events:  Immediately  after  His  exclamation,  "My  God, 
why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  "  He  adds,  "  I  thirst."  One 
of  those  present,  perhaps  a  soldier,  perhaps  a  spectator, 
moved  by  a  sudden  feeling  of  compassion,  prepares  the 
vinegar,  which  was  at  hand,  and  makes  ready  to  give  Him 
to  drink.    Whilst  doing  this,  the  others  call  upon  him  to 

1  Olshausen,  Lange,  Jones. 

■  Meyer,  Alexander,  Alford,  Friedlieb,  Ellicott. 


JESUS  BOWS  HIS   HEAD  AND  DIES.  545 

wait  a  little,  that  they  might  see  whether  Elias  would  come 
to  save  Him,  (Matt,  xxvii.  49.)  He,  however,  gives  Jesus 
the  drink,  and  then,  having  satisfied  his  compassionate  im- 
pulse, mockingly  adds,  "  Let  alone,  now  we  will  wait  for 
Elias,"  (Mark  xv.  36.)  Thus  the  words  of  Matthew  will  be 
those  of  the  spectators ;  those  of  Mark,  the  words  of  the 
giver  of  the  drink.  John  (xix.  29)  omits  this  mockery, 
and  merely  says,  in  general  terms,  "  they  filled  a  sponge 
with  vinegar,"  <fcc.  Luke  (xxiii.  36)  may  be  referred  to 
earlier  mockeries.' 

After  Jesus  had  received  the  vinegar,  He  cried  out 
with  a  loud  voice,  "  It  is  finished."  The  Evangelist  adds, 
"  And  He  bowed  His  head,  and  gave  up  the  ghost,"  (John 
xix.  30.)  Luke  (xxiii.  46)  narrates  that  "  When  He  had 
cried  with  a  loud  voice,  He  said,  Father,  into  Thy  hands  I 
commend  my  spirit :  and  having  said  thus,  He  gave  up  the 
ghost."  Matthew  and  Mark  both  mention  that  He  cried 
with  a  loud  voice,  but  do  not  relate  what  He  said.  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  His  words  given  by  John,  "  It  is 
finished,"  were  spoken  before  those  given  by  Luke, 
"  Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit." '  Having 
taken  the  vinegar,  which  gave  Him  a  momentary  relief 
from  His  thirst,  He  says,  feeling  that  the  end  was  at  hand, 
44  It  is  finished."  He  now  turns  to  God,  and,  addressing  to 
Him  His  dying  prayer,  bows  His  head  and  dies. 

The  order  of  the  words  spoken  by  our  Lord  from  the 
cross  may  be  thus  given :— Before  the  darkness:  1st.  His 
prayer  for  His  enemies.  2d,  His  promise  to  the  penitent 
thief.  3d.  His  charge  to  His  mother  and  to  John.  During 
the  darkness  :  4th.  His  cry  of  distress  to  God.    After  the 

1  See  Stier,  viii.  14-18 ;  Alexander  in  loco.  As  to  the  kind  of  drink  given 
Him,  and  the  motive  with  which  it  was  given,  see  various  suppositions  in 
Bynaeus,  iii.  428.  As  to  the  hyssop  branch  on  which  the  sponge  was  put, 
see  Royle,  Jour.  Sac.  Lit.,  Oct.  1849. 

*  Meyer,  Stier,  Da  Costa,  Alford. 


546  THE  LIFE   OP   OUE  LORD. 

darkness :  5th.  His  exclamation,  "  I  thirst."  6th.  His  de- 
claration, that  "It  is  finished."  7th.  The  final  commenda- 
tion of  His  spirit  to  God.1  Ebrard  would  thus  arrange  the 
first  three :  1st.  His  prayer  for  His  enemies.  2d.  His  charge 
to  His  mother  and  John.  3d.  His  promise  to  the  penitent 
thief.  KraftVs  order  is  as  follows :  1st.  His  prayer  for  His 
enemies.  2d.  His  promise  to  the  penitent  thief.  3d.  His 
cry  of  distress  to  God.  4th.  His  charge  to  His  mother  and 
John.  5th.  His  exclamation,  "  I  thirst."  6th.  "  It  is  fin- 
ished."    7th.  Commendation  of  His  spirit  to  God. 

The  quaking  of  the  earth,  and  the  rending  of  the  veil  of 
the  temple  and  of  the  rocks,  appear  from  Matthew  and 
Mark  to  have  been  at  the  same  instant  as  His  death.  Luke, 
(xxiii.  45,)  who  mentions  only  the  rending  of  the  veil,  speaks 
as  if  it  took  place  when  the  sun  was  darkened ;  but  his  lan- 
guage is  general  Meyer's  interpretation  of  the  statement 
that  "there  was  a  darkness  over  all  the  earth  until  the  ninth 
hour,"  as  denoting  only  a  partial  obscuration  of  the  sun, 
but  that  at  the  ninth  hour  it  "  was  darkened  "  and  wholly 
disappeared  from  sight ;  and  that  at  the  same  moment  the 
veil  of  the  temple  was  rent,  has  little  substantial  in  its  favor. 
Darkness,  in  which  the  sun  was  still  visible,  could  scarcely 
be  so  called.  The  first  statement,  v.  44,  is  the  effect ;  the 
second,  v.  45,  the  cause.*  Perhaps  the  darkness  may  have 
deepened  in  intensity  to  its  close.  That  the  rending  of  the 
veil  could  not  be  ascribed  to  an  earthquake,  however  vio- 
lent, is  apparent.  There  were  two  veils,  one  before  the 
holy  and  one  before  the  most  holy  place,  (Exod.  xxvi.  31- 
36.)    It  is  generally  agreed  that  the  latter  is  here  meant. 

The  account  given  by  Matthew  only  (xxvii.  52,  53)  of 
the  opening  of  the  graves  and  appearing  of  many  bodies  of 
the  saints,  some,  as  Norton,  have  rejected  as  an  interpola- 
tion. There  is,  however,  no  doubt  as  to  the  genuineness  of 

1  Stier,  Gresweil,  and  many.  «  Oosterzee  in  loco. 


GRAVES   OF  THE  SAINTS   ARE   OPENED.  547 

the  text.  The  graves  seem  to  have  been  those  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  Jerusalem.  That  those  who  arose 
are  called  "  saints,"  aywu,  does  not  determine  who  are 
meant ;  whether  some  who  had  died  recently,  perhaps  since 
Christ  began  His  ministry,  or  some  who  died  long  before, 
and  had  been  buried  there,  perhaps  patriarchs  and  proph- 
ets. From  the  fact  that  they  appeared  to  many,  the  pre- 
sumption is,  that  they  had  not  long  been  dead,  and  thus 
were  recognized  by  those  to  whom  they  appeared.  That 
their  resurrection  was  after  Christ's  resurrection,  although 
the  opening  of  their  tombs  was  at  His  death,  best  harmo- 
nizes with  the  scope  of  the  narrative.  This,  however,  is 
questioned  by  Meyer,  who  supposes  the  Evangelists  to  say 
that  they  came  out  of  the  graves  at  His  death,  but  did  not 
enter  the  holy  city  till  after  His  resurrection.1  After  He 
had  arisen,  they  appeared  openly,  their  resurrection  thus 
giving  force  and  meaning  to  His.  But  it  was  the  Lord's 
resurrection,  not  death,  that  opened  the  gates  of  Hades. 
Dying,  the  rocks  were  rent  and  the  doors  of  the  sepulchres 
were  opened ;  but,  rising,  He  gave  life  to  the  dead."  Da 
Costa  (429)  places,  however,  the  opening  of  the  graves 
also  subsequent  to  the  resurrection.  Whether  those  thus 
raised  were  raised  in  the  immortal  and  incorruptible  body, 
and  soon  ascended  to  heaven ;  or  whether,  like  others,  they 
died  again,  we  have  no  means  of  determining.  In  favor  of 
the  former  is  the  language,  they  "  appeared  unto  many," 
€vi^avurdr^rav  ttoAAois  ;  which  implies  that  they,  like  the  Lord 
Himself,  after  His  resurrection,  were  not  seen  by  all,  but 
only  by  those  to  whom  they  wished  to  manifest  them- 
selves.* 

The  impression  made  upon  the  centurion  by  all  the 

1  So  Bynaeus. 

«  Calvin,  Lightfoot,  Whitby,  A.  Clarke,  Calmet,  Greswell,  Kraffi,  Ebrard, 
Bengel,  Alford. 

*  For  early  opinions,  see  Calmet,  translated  in  Journal  Sao.  Lit.  1848, 
vol.  i.    See  also  Lardner,  ix.  828 ;  Sepp,  vi.  401. 


548 


THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LOKD. 


wonderful  events  accompanying  the  Lord's  death,  was  such 
that  he  openly  testified  his  conviction,  as  given  by  Matthew 
and  Mark,  that  Jesus  was  "  the  (a)  Son  of  God ; "  as  given 
by  Luke,  "  Certainly,  this  was  a  righteous  man."  The  lat- 
ter words  are  explained  by  Alford  thus  :  "  Truly,  this  man 
was  truthful ; "  that  is,  He  had  asserted  Himself  to  be,  and 
He  was,  the  Son  of  God.  Thus  the  expressions  of  the 
Evangelists  are  made  identical.  More  probably  He  ut- 
tered at  different  times  both  expressions. 


Friday,  15th  Nisan,  7th  April,  783.     a.  d.  30. 


Soon  after  the  Lord's  death,  the  chief  priests  came 
to  Pilate,  requesting  that  the  bodies  might  be  taken 
down  before  sunset,  because  the  next  day  was  the 
Sabbath.  Obtaining  their  request,  the  legs  of  the  two 
malefactors  are  broken  to  hasten  their  death ;  but  Je- 
sus, being  found  already  dead,  is  pierced  with  a  spear 
in  the  side.  At  this  time,  Joseph  of  Arimathea  goes 
to  Pilate,  and  informing  him  that  Jesus  was  already 
dead,  asks  His  body  for  burial ;  and  Pilate,  after  satis- 
fying himself  that  He  was  actually  dead,  orders  the 
body  to  be  given  him.  Aided  by  Nicodemus,  Joseph 
took  the  body,  and  winding  it  in  linen  cloths  with 
spices,  laid  it  in  his  own  sepulchre,  in  a  garden  near 
the  cross;  and  shut  up  the  sepulchre.  Some  women 
beheld  where  He  was  laid,  and,  returning  home,  pre- 
pared spices  and  ointments,  that  they  might  embalm 
Him  after  the  Sabbath  was  past.  During  the  Sabbath 
the  council  obtains  permission  from  Pilate  to  seal  up 
the  sepulchre  and  to  place  a  watch,  lest  the  disciples 
should  steal  the  body. 


John  xix.  81-37. 


Matt,  xxvii.  67-60. 
John  xix.  38-42. 
Mark  xv.  42-46. 
Lckk  xxiii.  60-54. 


Luke  xxiii.  66,  66. 
Matt,  xxvii.  61. 
Mark  xv.  47. 

Matt,  xxvii  62-66. 


It  was  the  custom  of  the  Romans  to  permit  the  body  to 
remain  on  the  cross  till  it  was  consumed  by  the  birds  and 
beasts,  or  wasted  by  corruption.1     But  it   was  an  express 

1  Pearson  on  Creed,  art.  4. 


THE  LEGS   OF  THE  MALEFACTORS   BROKEN.  549 

command  of  the  law,  (Deut.  xxi.  23,)  that  the  body  should 
not  remain  all  night  upon  the  tree,  but  must  be  taken  down 
and  buried  the  same  day.1  Aside  from  this  command  of 
the  law,  it  was  probably  thought  desirable  by  the  rulers, 
that  the  body  of  Jesus  should  be,  as  early  as  possible, 
removed  from  public  sight.  It  is  not  certain  whether  the 
Jews  who  came  to  Pilate  knew  that  He  was  actually  dead; 
but  their  request  that  the  legs  of  the  crucified  might  be 
broken,  implies  that  they  did  not.  If  so,  they  must  have 
come  to  Pilate  about  three  p.  m.,  or  a  little  before  His  death. 
If,  however,  they  did  know  that  He  was  dead,  as  is  not  im- 
probable from  the  marked  circumstances  that  attended  the 
act  of  dissolution,  their  request  had  reference  to  the  two 
malefactors,  who  were  still  living ;  and  perhaps  also  was  de- 
signed to  make  the  death  of  Jesus  certain."  That  the  natural 
effect  of  the  breaking  of  their  legs  would  be  to  hasten  death 
is  plain,  and  this  was  the  end  the  Jews  sought.  Usually 
the  Romans  did  not  in  this,  or  any  other  way  hasten  it ; 
though  sometimes  the  crucified  were  subjected  to  personal 
injuries,  as  pounding  with  hammers  or  breaking  of  limbs,  in 
order  to  increase  their  sufferings.  The  term  crurtfragium, 
though  literally  applicable  only  to  the  breaking  of  the  legs, 
and  which  sometimes  constituted  a  separate  punishment, 
seems  to  have  been  applied  to  various  other  acts,  which 
tended  to  increase  the  pain,  and  so  to  shorten  life ;  and 
may  have  included  the  use  of  the  spear.  The  Jews  wished 
not  to  increase  their  sufferings,  but  to  hasten  death  ;  and 
we  may  well  suppose  that  the  soldiers  were  directed,  if 
the  breaking  of  the  legs  should  not  prove  sufficient,  to  use 
other  means.'  Whether,  in  addition  to  the  breaking  of  the 
legs  of  the  two  malefactors,  other  violent  means  were  used, 
is  not  certain  ;   but  the  narrative  does  not  imply  it. 

The  object  of  piercing  the  Lord's  side  was  not  so  much 

i  Joaephus,  War,  4.  S.  2 ;  Josh.  x.  26.  ■  So  Meyer. 

»  Friedlieb,  ArchiioL  164. 


550  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LOED. 

to  cause  death  as  to  make  sure  that  He  was  already  dead. 
Which  side  was  pierced,  is  not  said ;  and  the  painters,  as 
well  as  commentators,  have  been  divided  in  opinion  :  most, 
however,  suppose  the  left  side.  With  what  intent  does  the 
apostle  mention  the  flowing  out  of  the  blood  and  water? 
Does  he  mention  it  as  a  simple  physiological  fact,  and  in 
proof  of  the  Lord's  death ;  or  as  a  supernatural  event,  to 
which  some  special  significance  is  to  be  attached  ?  As  this 
point  has  an  important  bearing  upon  the  question  respect- 
ing the  physical  cause  of  the  Lord's  death,  it  deserves  our 
consideration. 

Lying  at  the  basis  of  all  inquiries  respecting  the  Lord's 
death,  physiologically  regarded,  is  the  question  whether  He 
died  as  other  crucified  persons  died,  death  being  the  nat- 
ural consequence  of  His  physical  sufferings;  or  whether 
He  gave  up  His  life  by  an  immediate  act  of  His  own  will, 
or  by  an  immediate  act  of  His  Father  in  answer  to  His 
prayer.  The  latter  opinion  seems  to  have  prevailed  in  the 
early  Church,  though  by  no  means  universally.1  Of  recent 
writers  may  be  mentioned  Tholuck  :  "  By  an  act  of  power 
the  Redeemer  actually  separated  His  spirit  from  His  body, 
and  placed  it,  as  a  deposit,  in  His  Father's  keeping."  Al- 
ford :  "  It  was  His  own  act, — *  no  feeling  the  approach  of 
death,'  as  some,  not  apprehending  the  matter,  have  com- 
mented, but  a  determined  delivering  up  of  His  spirit  to  the 
Father.''  Stier:  "He  dies,  as  the  act  of  His  will,  in  full 
vigor  of  life."2  If  this  opinion  be  correct,  and  Jesus  died 
by  His  own  act,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  it  can  be  said 
that  He  was  slain  by  the  Jews.  His  death  was  in  conse- 
quence of  His  own  volition,  and  not  of  any  sufferings  in- 
flicted upon  Him  by  His  enemies.  We  therefore  conclude, 
that  though  He  voluntarily  gave  Himself  to  death,  and  sub- 
mitted to  be  nailed  to  the  cross,  yet  that  death  came  to 

1  See  Stroud,  Physical  Cause  of  Christ's  Death.    London,  1847,  p.  47. 
3  In  like  way  speak  Greswell,  Alexander,  Jones,  Baumgarten. 


PHYSICAL  CAUSE  OF  THE  LORD'S  DEATH.       551 

Him  as  to  the  two  malefactors,  naturally,  not  supernatu- 
rally ;  and  was  the  consequence  of  His  physical  sufferings, 
aggravated  by  mental  distress.1 

Many,  however,  have  found  difficulty  in  explaining,  in 
this  way,  the  quickness  of  the  Lord's  death.  He  was  not 
upon  the  cross,  at  the  longest,  more  than  six  hours ;  while 
it  is  well  known  that  the  great  majority  of  the  crucified 
live  at  least  twelve  hours ;  many,  one  or  two  days ;  and 
some,  three  or  four  days.  But  there  seems  no  valid  reason 
why  we  may  not  attribute  this  speedy  decease  to  the  great 
physical  weakness  caused  by  His  previous  bodily  and  men- 
tal sufferings,  superadded  to  the  ordinary  agonies  of  cruci- 
fixion. That  those  sufferings  were  most  intense  we  know 
from  the  account  given  of  the  hour  passed  at  Gethsemane  ; 
and  that  the  Lord,  already  exhausted  by  His  great  spirit- 
ual conflicts  with  the  power  of  darkness,  by  the  excitement 
and  fatigue  of  that  awful  night,  and  by  the  scourging 
inflicted  upon  Him,  should  have  died  so  much  sooner  than 
was  usually  the  case,  can  excite  no  surprise.  Nor  do  the 
objections  of  Stroud,  based  upon  the  natural  vigor  and 
healthfulness  of  the  Lord's  body ;  the  short  duration  of  His 
mental  agony  in  the  garden  ;  and  the  proof  of  unabated 
physical  strength  shown  by  the  loudness  of  voice  with 
which  He  uttered  His  last  words  upon  the  cross,  seem  of 
much  weight.* 

Those  who  regard  the  Lord's  death  as  a  natural  event, 
yet  one  whose  quick  consummation  is  not  adequately  ex- 
plained by  the  pains  attendant  upon  His  crucifixion,  are 
forced  to  give  another  explanation.  Of  these,  several  have 
been  presented.  One  is  that  of  Stroud,  that  the  immediate 
physical  cause  was  rupture  of  the  heart,  caused  by  the 
great  mental   suffering  He   endured,    (pp.    74   and   143.) 

»  So,  in  substance,  Pearson,  Bloomfield,  Stroud,  Ellicott. 
*  As  to  the  pains  of  crucifixion,  and  their  natural  effects  in  destroying 
life,  see  Richtcr  in  Fricdlicb,  Archiiol.  155. 


552  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

Another,  that  attributes  His  death  to  the  piercing  of  the 
spear,  is  so  directly  at  variance  with  the  evangelical  nar- 
rative, that  it  may  be  at  once  dismissed,  (John  xix.  30  and 
33.)  As  the  incident  of  the  flowing  of  the  blood  and  water 
from  His  side  furnishes  the  chief  ground  upon  which 
Stroud  rests  his  explanation,  we  turn  to  its  considera- 
tion. 

The  first  question  that  arises  is,  does  the  Evangelist  nar- 
rate here  a  natural  or  a  supernatural  event  ?  That  he  at- 
tached some  special  importance  to  it,  is  apparent  from  His 
words,  (v.  35,)  which  seems  to  refer  chiefly  to  it,1  though 
the  reference  may  be  to  all  related,  vs.  32-34.  Commen- 
tators are  by  no  means  agreed  in  opinion." 

If  the  former  view  be  correct,  and  the  flowing  of  the 
blood  and  water  was  without  any  miraculous  features,  why 
is  it  here  mentioned  ?  Some  reply,  to  prove  the  reality  of 
the  Lord's  body  as  against  the  Docet®."  But  the  reality 
of  His  body  had  been  proved,  in  a  thousand  ways,  during 
His  life ;  and  if  His  body,  sensible  to  touch  and  sight,  was 
a  phantasm,  so  might  much  more  easily  be  this  seeming 
blood  and  water.  According  to  Alford,  it  was  to  show 
that  the  Lord's  body  was  a  real  body,  and  underwent  real 
death,  "  not  so  much  by  the  phenomenon  of  tfce  water  and 
blood,  as  by  the  infliction  of  such  a  wound."  But  the 
Evangelist  had  distinctly  stated  that  Jesus  was  dead  before 
this  wound  was  inflicted ;  and  none  of  the  other  Evangelists 
mention  the  piercing,  though  all  speak  of  His  death.  But, 
granting  this  to  be  the  intention  of  St.  John,  how  is  the 
reality  of  His  death  thus  shown  ?    Are  proper  blood  and 

1  So  Meyer. 

2  On  the  one  side  may  be  mentioned  Calvin,  who  says,  Ilallucinati  sunt 
quidam,  miraculum  hie  fingentes ;  A.  Clarke,  Tholuck,  Ebrard,  Ewald,  Al- 
ford ;  on  the  other,  Lightfoot,  Bengel,  Greswell,  Luthardt,  Meyer. 

3  So  Coleridge  in  Stroud  :  "  The  effusion  showed  the  human  nature.  It 
was  real  blood,  composed  of  lymph  and  crassamentum,  and  not  a  mere  celes- 
tial ichor,  as  the  Phantasmatists  allege." 


PLOWING   OF  THE   BLOOD   AND  WATER.  553 

water  here  meant,  aqua  pura  et  vera,  sanguis  purus  et 
verus,  as  said  by  Bengel  ?  No,  for  this  would  remove  it 
into  the  region  of  the  supernatural.  Have  we,  then,  in 
these  terms,  merely  a  hendiadys  for  reddish  lymph,  or 
bloody  water?  This  is  inadmissible.  Does  the  apostle 
then  mean  blood  that  had  decomposed,  and  was  thus  re- 
solved into  crassamentum  and  serum,  or  the  thick  red  part 
of  the  blood  and  the  aqueous  transparent  part  ?  This  is 
the  view  taken  by  many ;  and  it  is  said  that  we  have  in  this, 
conclusive  proof  not  only  of  His  death,  but  that  He  had 
also  been  some  time  dead,  since  the  blood  had  begun  to  de- 
compose. Thus  Neander  says :  "  I  must  believe  that  John, 
as  an  eye-witness,  meant  to  prove  that  Christ  was  really 
dead  from  the  nature  of  the  blood  that  flowed  from  the 
wound." 

Admitting,  for  the  moment,  that  the  blood  and  water 
were  the  constituent  parts  of  blood  now  decomposed, 
whence  came  they  ?  According  to  Stroud,  from  the  peri- 
cardium, into  which,  through  the  rupture  of  the  heart, 
there  was  a  great  effusion  of  blood,  and  which  was  there 
decomposed.  The  pericardium,  being  pierced  by  the  spear, 
it  flowed  in  crassamentum  and  serum,  "  a  full  stream  of 
clear  watery  liquid,  intermixed  with  clotted  blood,  exactly 
corresponding  to  the  clause  of  the  sacred  narrative." 
Ebrard  (563)  supposes  it  to  have  been  extravasated  blood, 
that,  flowing  into  some  of  the  internal  cavities  of  the  chest, 
there  decomposed,  and  these  cavities  being  opened  by  the 
spear,  the  constituent  parts  made  their  escape. 

Against  all  these  explanations  which  are  based  upon 
the  coagulation  of  the  blood,  and  aside  from  the  physiologi- 
cal objections  to  which  they  are  open,  we  find  an  invinci- 
ble difficulty  in  the  words  of  the  Psalmist,  that  God  would 
not  suffer  His  Holy  One  to  see  corruption;  and  in  the 
declaration  of  St.  Peter,  that  "  His  flesh  did  not  see  cor- 
ruption." His  body  was  not  to  see  corruption ;  or,  in  other 
24 


554  THE  LIFE  OP   OUB  LORD. 

words,  the  usual  processes  of  decay  were  not  to  commence 
in  it.  Decomposition  of  the  blood  can  scarcely  be  consid- 
ered as  other  than  the  initial  step  of  corruption.  The  full 
separation  of  His  soul  and  His  body  must  take  place ;  but, 
after  this,  he  "that  had  the  power  of  death  "  had  no  more 
power  over  the  Holy  One. 

The  explanations  of  the  Gruners  and  of  the  Bartholines1 
are  free  from  this  difficulty,  since  they  do  not  affirm  a 
coagulation  of  the  blood.  The  former  suppose  that  both 
pericardium  and  heart  were  pierced  by  the  spear ;  and  that 
from  the  former  came  the  water,  and  from  the  latter  the 
blood.  The  statement  of  the  elder  Gruner,  that  u  the  peri- 
cardium is  full  of  water  when  a  person  dies  after  extreme 
anxiety,"  does  not  seem  to  be  sustained  by  facts.  That 
there  must  have  been  a  considerable  quantity  of  water  as 
well  as  of  blood  flowing  forth,  appears  from  the  fact  that 
the  apostle,  standing  doubtless  at  some  distance  from  the 
cross,  was  able  to  distinguish  them.  It  is  in  a  high  degree 
improbable  that  any  such  quantity  of  serum  should  have 
been  found  in  the  pericardium  as  to  be  visible  to  him.  It 
is  also  difficult  to  explain,  in  this  way,  the  flowing  of  the 
blood,  since  the  heart  of  a  dead  person  is  usually  emptied 
of  its  blood;  or,  if  any  remains,  it  would  flow  very  slowly: 
and  to  say  that  Jesus  was  not  wholly  dead  when  pierced 
with  the  spear,  is  contrary  to  the  sacred  narrative. 

The  second  explanation,  that  of  the  Bartholines,  sup- 
poses that  the  water  and  blood  came  from  one  or  both  of 
the  pleural  sacs.  It  is  said  that,  during  the  sufferings  of 
crucifixion,  a  bloody  serum  was  effused  in  these  sacs,  from 
which,  when  pierced  by  the  spear,  it  flowed  out.  But  aside 
from  the  fact  that  such  an  effusion  of  bloody  serum  or 
lymph  as  the  narrative  demands,  is  not  proved  in  cases  of 
crucified  persons,  if  indeed  in  any  case  whatever ;  there  is 

1  See  Stroud,  186-137. 


THE  LORD'S  BODY  SAW  NO  CORRUPTION.      555 

the  further  objection  that  such  bloody  serum  does  not  an- 
swer to  the  Evangelist's  M  blood  and  water." 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  attempts  to  explain  this 
phenomenon  as  a  merely  natural  event,  and  upon  physio- 
logical grounds,  are  by  no  means  satisfactory.  They  are 
wholly  unable  to  explain  how  so  much  clear  serum,  as  the 
narrative  plainly  implies,  could  have  been  found  in  the  peri- 
cardium, or  in  the  pleural  sacs,  or  in  any  of  the  internal 
cavities  which  the  spear  could  have  reached.  Against  the 
view  that  it  was  coagulated  blood,  stands  the  fact  that  the 
Lord's  body  saw  no  corruption  ;  nor  would  any  unlearned 
reader  understand  the  terms  *  blood  and  water  "  of  de- 
composed blood.  We  therefore  infer,  that  the  event  was 
something  supernatural.  It  is  not  here  the  place  to  inquire 
into  its  special  significance.  It  may  have  been  a  sign  to  all 
beholders  that  the  body  was  not  subject  to  the  common 
law  of  corruption.  The  spirit  of  Jesus  had  departed,  and 
with  it  that  vital  energy  which  held  together  the  constitu- 
ent elements  of  the  body ;  yet  disorganization  and  dissolu- 
tion did  not  begin.  According  to  Lange,1  it  was  a  sign 
that  the  change  in  the  body,  preparatory  to  the  resurrec- 
tion, bad  already  begun ;  the  power  of  God  was  already 
working  in  it,  to  prepare  it  for  immortality  and  incorrupti- 
bility. 

It  was  in  the  power  of  governors  of  provinces  to  grant 
private  burial  to  criminals  when  requested  by  friends ;  and 
this  was  usually  done,  except  they  were  very  mean  and  in- 
famous.* But  for  the  request  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  the 
body  would  probably  have  been  buried  in  some  place  ap- 
propriated to  criminals,  and  where  the  two  malefactors 
were  actually  buried.  "  They  that  were  put  to  death  by 
the  council  were  not  to  be  buried  in  the  sepulchres  of  their 
fathers;  but  two  burying  places  were  appointed  by  the 

i  Note  in  looo.  ■  Pearson,  Creed,  882. 


556  THE  LIFE   OP   OUB  LORD. 

council,  one  for  those  slain  by  the  sword  and  strangled,  the 
other  for  those  that  were  stoned  or  burnt."  l  Pilate  could 
have  no  objection  to  granting  Joseph's  request ;  as,  on  the 
one  hand,  his  position  as  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrim  en. 
titled  him  to  a  favorable  hearing ;  and,  on  the  other,  he 
was  not  unwilling  that  the  innocent  victim  should  have  an 
honorable  burial.  (Mark  xv.  45.  He  gave  the  body  to 
Joseph ;  or,  more  literally,  made  a  gift  or  present  of  the 
body  to  him.)  According  to  Mark,  xv.  44,  Pilate  was 
surprised  that  He  was  already  dead ;  and,  calling  the  cen- 
turion, made  inquiries  how  long  He  had  been  dead.  How 
is  this  coming  of  Joseph  related  to  that  of  the  Jews,  (John 
xix.  31,)  who  asked  that  the  bodies  might  be  taken  down  ? 
We  may  suppose  that  the  Jews  came  about  3  p.  m.,  be- 
fore the  coming  of  Joseph,  and  were  ignorant  of  the  Lord's 
death.  Joseph  may  have  stood  near  the  cross,  and  heard 
His  last  words,  and  thus  have  known  of  His  death  so  soon 
as  it  occurred.  He  went  to  Pilate  "  when  the  even  was 
come,"  (Matt,  xxvii.  57,)  or  from  3-6  p.  m.  Going  at  once 
to  Pilate  he  informs  him  of  it ;  and  the  latter,  knowing  that 
sufficient  time  has  not  elapsed  for  the  execution  of  the 
order  respecting  the  breaking  of  the  legs,  or  at  least  for 
their  death  after  their  legs  were  broken,  is  surprised.  The 
Jews,  indeed,  may  have  preferred  their  request  after  Joseph 
had  preferred  his,  and  Pilate  have  given  the  soldiers  orders 
to  make  sure  that  Jesus  was  really  dead,  ere  He  was  given 
up  for  burial ;  but  the  former  order  is  most  probable.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  suppose  that  Joseph  knew  of  the  purpose  to 
have  the  bodies  taken  down,  though  he  might  have  done  so. 
Joseph,  having  received  permission  to  take  the  body,  is 
aided  by  Nicodemus ;  and,  taking  it  down,  they  wrap  it  in 
linen  cloths,  with  "myrrh  and  aloes  about  an  hundred  pound 
weight,"  which  the  latter  had  brought,  and  lay  it  in  a  new 
sepulchre  in  a  garden  near  at  hand,  which  belonged  to  Jo- 

1  Lightfoot  on  Matt  xxviii.  58. 


EMBALMING  OF  THE  LORD'S  BODY.         557 

seph.1  It  has  been  questioned  whether  the  spices  were 
actually  used,  because  of  the  shortness  of  time.  But  John's 
words  are  express  that  the  spices  were  used.  It,  however, 
remains  doubtful  whether  the  customary  embalming  was 
then  perfected.  Lardner  (x.  368)  remarks,  that  "  all  was 
done,  as  may  reasonably  be  supposed,  after  the  best  man- 
ner, by  the  hands  of  an  apothecary  or  confectioner,  or 
perfumer,  skilled  in  performing  funeral  rites.  There  must 
have  been  many  such  at  Jerusalem."  Norton'  makes 
the  transactions  of  anointing  and  burying  the  body,  to 
have  occupied  many  hours,  and  the  dawn  of  the  Sab* 
bath  to  have  appeared  ere  all  engaged  in  them  had  left 
the  tomb.  But  it  is  more  probable  that  Joseph  and  Nico- 
demus  were  themselves  able  to  do  all  that  was  necessary  to 
be  done ;  for  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  body 
was  embalmed  in  any  proper  sense  of  that  term.  u  The 
Egyptians  filled  the  interior  of  the  body  with  spices ;  but 
the  Jews,  who  buried  on  the  day  of  decease,  only  wrapped 
the  body  round  with  spices."  *  It  is  probable  that  all  was 
finished  before  the  Sabbath  began.  If,  however,  the  body 
was  then  properly  prepared  for  its  burial,  why  did  the 
women,  who  "  beheld  the  sepulchre  and  how  the  body  was 
laid,"  prepare  additional  spices  and  ointments  ?  It  could 
not  well  have  been  from  ignorance  of  what  Nicodemus  had 
done.  We  must,  therefore,  suppose  that  this  further  anoint- 
ing was  something  customary  ;4  or  that  the  first  was  imper- 
fect, and  this  therefore  necessary ;  or  that  it  was  a  mark  of 
love.* 

1  It  is  not  certain  that  Nicodemus  came  till  the  body  had  been  taken  from 
the  cross. 

»  Note*,  817. 

*  Michaelis  on  Resurrection,  93 ;  Greswell,  iii.  260,  note. 

*  Friedlieb,  Arch.  172. 

*  Meyer,  Greswell ;  Alex,  on  Mark  xvi.  1.  Lange  regards  the  first  as  only 
for  the  preservation  of  the  body,  and  the  second  as  the  proper  anointing. 
Jones  affirms,  that,  as  Joseph  and  Nicodemus  were  secret  disciples,  the  wo- 
men had  no  acquaintance  with  them,  and  did  not  know  their  purpose. 


553  JHE   LITE   OP   OUR   LOKD. 

The  Lord  was  crucified  at  a  place  called  in  the  Hebrew, 
Golgotha,  and  His  body  was  laid  in  a  sepulchre  in  a  garden 
near  by.  The  site  of  this  sepulchre  has  been  much  dis- 
cussed, and  with  great  learning  and  ingenuity,  but  without 
leading  to  any  certain  result.  For  many  centuries  the 
Christian  Church  received,  without  question,  the  tradition- 
ary tomb  beneath  the  dome  of  the  present  church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  as  that  to  which  He  was  borne,  and  from 
which  He  arose.  Of  this  belief  is  still  the  great  body  of 
Christians.  But  a  large  number  of  modern  travellers  have 
been  led,  by  a  personal  inspection  of  the  spot,  to  doubt  the 
tradition,  and  have  brought  very  cogent  arguments  against 
it.  Fortunately,  here,  as  often,  it  is  of  little  importance 
whether  the  traditionary  site  be,  or  be  not,  the  true  one. 
The  fact  of  the  Lord's  resurrection  is  a  vital  one,  but  not 
whether  He  arose  from  a  tomb  in  the  valley  of  Jehosaphat, 
or  on  the  side  of  Acra.  Nor  is,  as  affirmed  by  Williams,1 
"  the  credit  of  the  whole  Church  for  fifteen  hundred  years 
in  some  measure  involved  in  its  veracity."  Few  will  so 
press  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  as  to  deny  the  possibil- 
ity of  a  topographical  error.  The  little  value  attached  by 
the  apostles  to  the  holy  places,  appears  from  the  brevity 
with  which  they  speak  of  them  when  they  allude  to  them 
at  all.  Not  to  the  places  of  His  birth  and  of  His  burial 
would  they  turn  the  eyes  of  the  early  Christians,  but  to 
Himself— the  ever-living  One,  and  now  the  great  High 
Priest  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

But  however  unimportant  in  itself,  either  as  confirma- 
tory of  the  Gospel  narratives,  or  as  illustrating  the  Lord's 
words,  still,  as  a  point  that  has  so  greatly  interested  men, 
it  may  not  be  wholly  passed  by.  A  brief  statement  of  the 
question  will  therefore  be  given,  that  the  chief  data  for  a 
judgment  may  be  in  the  reader's  possession.  It  naturally 
presents  itself,  first,  as  a  question  of  topography ;  and,  sec- 

>  Holy  City,  ii.  2. 


PLACE   OP   CRUCIFIXION.  559 

ond,  of  history.  But  before  we  consider  it  from  either  of 
these  points  of  view,  let  us  note  what  is  said  respecting  the 
places  of  crucifixion  and  of  burial  by  the  Evangelists. 

From  their  statements  it  appears,  First,  that  the  place  of 
crucifixion  was  out  of  the  city,  (John  xix.  17  ;  Matt,  xxviii. 
11 ;  Heb.  xiii.  12.)  Second,  it  was  near  the  city,  (John 
xix.  20.)  Third,  the  sepulchre  was  near  the  place  of  cruci- 
fixion, (John  xix.  41.)  Fourth,  it  was  in  a  garden  and 
hewn  in  a  rock,  (Matt,  xxvii.  60 ;  Mark  xv.  46 ;  John  xix. 
41 ;  Luke  xxiii.  53.)  It  may,  perhaps,  be  inferred  from 
Mark  xv.  29,  "And  they  that  passed  by  railed  on  Him," 
that  the  cross  stood  near  some  frequented  street,  but  much 
weight  cannot  be  laid  upon  it.  The  name  of  the  place 
where  He  was  crucified  was  Golgotha,  which  Alexander 
calls  "an  Aramaic  form  of  the  Hebrew  word  for  skull." 
"  The  proper  writing  and  pronunciation  of  the  word,"  says 
Lightfoot,  "  had  been  Golgolta,  but  use  had  now  brought 
it  to  be  uttered  Golgotha."  Some  suppose  it  so  called 
from  its  resemblance  to  the  shape  of  a  skull — a  little  hill  so 
shaped  ; '  others,  because  it  was  the  usual  place  of  execu- 
tion. "  They  come  to  the  place  of  execution  commonly 
called  Golgotha,  not  the  ■  place  of  graves  ■  but  the  place  of 
skulls ;  where,  though  indeed  there  were  some  buried  of 
the  executed,  yet  was  it  in  such  a  manner  that  the  place 
deserved  this  name  rather  than  the  other."  * 

If  the  first  interpretation  of  the  name  be  taken,  it  is  still 
possible  that  it  was- the  common  place  of  execution.  That  it 
was  a  well  known  spot,  appears  from  the  use  of  the  article, 
(Luke  xxiii.  33;  John  xix.  17;)  but  it  is  doubtful  whether 
the  Jews  had  any  one  place  set  apart  as  a  place  of  execu- 
tion ; '  and  if  so,  would  a  rich  man  like  Joseph  have  had  a 

1  So  Reland,  Meyer,  Alexander,  Winer. 

•  Lightfoot,  iii.  164;  so  early,  Jerome,  locum  decollatorum ;  Greswell,  iii. 
248  ;  Ewald,  v.  484. 

»  See  Kitto,  Bib.  Cyc.,  i.  779  ;  Herzog's  Cylt.,  v.  808. 


560  THE  LIFE  OF   OUE  LORD. 

garden  there  ?  If,  then,  we  reject  this,  we  may  suppose 
that  the  Lord  was  taken  to  the  nearest  convenient  place  in 
the  suburbs  of  the  city.  In  regard  to  the  epithet  u  mount," 
applied  to  Calvary,  Robinson  denies  that  Eusebius,  or 
Cyril,  or  Jerome,  or  any  of  the  historians  of  the  fourth  or 
fifth  centuries,  use  it ;  and  ascribes  its  origin  to  the  fact  that 
the  rock  of  Golgotha  was  left  in  the  midst  of  the  large  open 
court,  formerly  the  garden,  on  one  side  of  which  a  Basilica 
was  erected.  "  From  this  rock  or  monticule  of  Golgotha 
was  doubtless  derived  the  epithet c  mount'  as  applied  to  the 
present  Golgotha  or  Calvary."  l  According  to  Willis,  the 
rock  of  Calvary  was  part  of  a  little  swell  of  the  ground 
forming  a  somewhat  abrupt  brow  on  the  west  and  south 
sides.  "  This  would  afford  a  convenient  spot  for  the  place 
of  public  execution.  For  the  southwestern  brow  of  the 
rock  has  just  sufficient  elevation  to  raise  the  wretched  suf- 
ferers above  the  gazing  crowd,  that  would  naturally  ar- 
range itself  below  and  upon  the  sloping  ridge  opposite."  * 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  topographical 
question ;  and  as  this  has  been  most  fully  discussed  by 
Robinson  in  his  "  Biblical  Researches  "  on  the  one  side,  and 
by  Williams  in  his  "Holy  City"  on  the  other,  our  references 
will  be  chiefly  to  them.  As  we  have  seen,  the  place  of  cruci- 
fixion was  without  the  city.  The  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre 
is  within  the  present  city  wall.  If,  therefore,  the  present 
wall  were  the  same  that  existed  at  the  death  of  Jesus,  this 
site  could  not  be  the  true  one.  But  it  is  admitted  that  the 
present  wall  is  not  the  same  ;  and  the  point  in  dispute  is, 
Where  did  that  wall  stand?  Josephus  mentions  three 
walls.3    With  the  first,  built  by  David  and  Solomon,  and 

1  i.  376,  note  8. 

a  Holy  City,  ii.  240.  Ewald  (v.  485,  note)  identifies  it  with  "  the  hill 
Gareb,"  Jer.  xxxi.  39 ;  Lewin,  (130,)  following  Krafft,  with  Goath :  "  In 
the  time  of  the  prophets,  Calvary  appears  to  have  been  called  Goath,  and 
was  without  the  city."    See  p.  35,  where  Gareb  is  identified  with  Bezetha. 

«  War,  5.  4.  2. 


fITE   OF  THE   SKPULCHBE.  561 

embracing  Mount  Sion,  and  with  the  last,  built  by  Agrippa 
after  Christ's  death,  we  have  no  concern.  The  question 
concerns  only  the  position  of  the  second  wall,  which  began 
at  the  gate  Gennath  in  the  first  wall,  and  reached  to  An- 
tonia,  encircling  the  northern  part  of  the  town.  Did  this 
include  or  exclude  the  present  church  of  the  Holy  Sepul- 
chre? 

Into  the  intricate  disoussions  respecting  the  position  of 
Acra,  and  of  the  valley  of  the  Tyropoeon,  it  is  not  necessary 
here  to  enter.  Acra  may  be,  as  maintained  by  Robinson 
and  others,  on  the  north  side  of  Sion,  and  the  valley  of  the 
Tyropoeon  lie  between  it  and  Sion  ;  and  yet  the  position  of 
the  second  wall  be  not  thereby  determined.1  To  determine 
the  position  of  the  second  wall,  Josephus  gives  us  the  two 
termini — the  gate  Gennath  in  the  first  wall  and  the  tower 
Antonia ;  and  implies  that  it  ran  not  m  a  straight  line  but 
in  a  circle,  KvicXovfjuevov  8f  to  Trpoaapicriov  kAi/au,  <fcc.,  "  en- 
circling the  northern  part,"  Where  was  the  gate  Gen- 
nath ?  The  name  indicates  that  it  was  a  gate  leading  to  a 
garden,  or  near  one.  By  Robinson  it  is  placed  in  the  first 
wall,  near  the  tower  Hippicus,  which  both  Robinson  and 
Williams  agree  to  have  been  upon,  or  very  near,  the  site  of 
the  modern  citadel  £1  Ealah,  not  far  south  or  southeast 
from  the  present  Jaffa  gate.'  By  others  it  is  placed  farther 
to  the  east,  near  the  Bazaars,  which  lie  midway  upon  the 
street  running  from  the  Jaffa  gate  to  the  temple  wall,  and 
close  to  the  traditional  "Iron  Gate,  (Acts  xii.  10.)*  The 
arguments  upon  either  side  are  not  conclusive;  nor  which- 

1  Much  importance  is,  indeed,  giren  by  many  in  this  controversy  to  the 
exact  locations  of  Acra  and  the  Tyropoeon ;  so  Williams  and  Robinson. 
Schaffter  makes  the  whole  controversy  to  turn  upon  it.  Raumer,  on  the  con- 
trary, who  agrees  upon  these  points  with  Robinson,  does  not  find  that  they 
decide  the  course  of  the  second  wall. 

'  So  Raumer.    According  to  Lewin,  this  is  not  Hippicus  but  Phasaelus. 

*  So  Williams,  Schaffter.     Lewin  puts  it  east  of  the  three  great  towers  of 
Herod,  and  due  south  from  the  southwest  corner  of  the  Pool  of  Hezekiah. 
24* 


562  THE  LIFE  OF   OUB  LOED. 

ever  point  be  selected,  does  it  decide  the  question  ;  since  it 
is  admitted  by  Robinson,  (i.  410,)  that  if  the  second  wall 
ran  in  a  straight  line  from  Hippicus  to  Antonia,  it  would 
leave  the  Holy  Sepulchre  without  the  city.  Still,  the  nearer 
was  this  gate  to  Hippicus,  the  less  the  probability  that  it 
ran  east  of  the  present  sepulchre ;  and  the  probability  di- 
minishes as  the  northern  terminus  is  carried  westward.  It 
is,  however,  to  be  noted  that  all  are  not  agreed  as  to  the 
position  of  Hippicus.  Schwartz  places  it  on  a  high  rocky 
hill,  north  of  the  so-called  Grotto  of  Jeremiah ;  Fergusson 
identifies  it  with  the  present  Kasr  Jalud;  Bonar  denies 
that  it  is  the  citadel  of  David,  but  assigns  no  site. 

As  to  the  general  position  of  Antonia,  there  is  no 
doubt.  It  was  on  the  north  of  the  temple  area,  and  prob- 
ably on  the  northwest  corner.1  Robinson,  however,  makes 
it  to  have  occupied  the  whole  northern  part  of  the  present 
Haram  area.  In  this  discussion  the  difference  is  unim- 
portant. 

With  this  knowledge  of  the  termini,  we  now  ask  as  to 
the  course  of  the  wall.  It  was  not  straight,  but  curved. 
Are  there  any  ruins  by  which  it  may  be  traced  ?  Robinson 
discovered  in  the  present  wall,  at  the  Damascus  gate,  some 
ancient  remains,  which  he  identifies  with  the  guard  houses 
of  a  gate  of  the  second  wall ;  and  the  identification  is  ac- 
cepted by  Williams.  This  narrows  down  the  question  to 
the  course  of  the  wall  from  the  gate  Gennath  to  the  Da- 
mascus gate.  Are  there  any  remains  that  indicate  its  posi- 
tion between  these  points  ?  West  of  the  Damascus  gate, 
for  about  300  feet,  Robinson  finds  traces  of  an  old  wall, 
which  he  supposes  may  be  the  ancient  second  wall.*  If  cor- 
rect, this  would  remove  its  northern  terminus  so  much 
farther  westward ;  and  here  it  is  placed  by  Williams.  Sim- 
ilar remains  have  been  found  in  an  angle  of  the  present 

»  Raumer,  389 ;  Williams,  409.  »  So  Wilson. 


COURSE   OF  THE  SECOND  WALL.  563 

wail,  near  the  Latin  Convent.1  If  it  is  true  that  these  re- 
mains mark  the  course  of  the  second  wall,  it  is  apparent 
that  the  present  site  of  the  sepulchre  would  be  embraced 
within  it,  and  is  thus  disproved. 

On  the  other  side,  Williams  (ii.  51)  finds  remains  of  two 
ancient  gateways,  as  he  supposes,  of  the  second  wall ;  one 
on  the  south  side  of  ruins  of  the  Hospital  of  St.  John,  and 
another  farther  to  the  north,  and  known  by  tradition  as 
the  "  Porta  Judicii,"  or  Gate  of  Judgment.  In  these  re- 
mains Robinson,  however,  finds  no  traces  of  the  second 
walL  Of  the  first  he  says,  it  may  have  been  one  of  the  piers 
of  a  portal,  but  not  more  ancient  than  the  hospital ;  of  the 
second,  that  a  single  column  furnishes  no  evidence  of  a 
gateway  ;  and  that  the  tradition  respecting  the  Judgment 
Gate  goes  no  farther  back  than  the  end  of  the  Crusades.' 

All  defenders  of  the  present  site  of  the  sepulchre  do  not 
admit,  with  Williams,  that  the  present  gate  of  Damascus  is 
a  gateway  of  the  second  wall.  Some  make  it  to  turn  east- 
erly fxora  the  Gate  of  Judgment  to  Antonia.* 

The  objection*  to  the  present  site,  drawn  from  the  fact 
that  the  distance  from  it  to  the  western  wall  of  the  Haram 
area  is  less  than  a  quarter  of  a  mile,  thus  making  the  city 
much  too  small  for  the  number  of  inhabitants,  is  of  weight, 
but  not  decisive,  since  we  know  that  the  ancient  city  ex- 
tended much  farther  south  than  the  present.* 

Much  stress  has  been  laid  by  some  upon  the  fact  that 
within  the  present  Church  of  the  Sepulchre  is  a  "  rock-tomb, 
formed  long  before  the  church  was  built,  and  which  proba- 
bly belonged  to  an  old  Jewish  sepulchre  of  an  age  prior  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans." 8  "  The  ex- 
istence of  these  sepulchres,"  says  Stanley,  (452,)  "  proves, 

>  Robinson,  iii.  219 ;  Porter,  i.  109. 

>  See  Schaffler,  46 ;  Barclay,  226  ;  Lewin,  119. 

•  See  Raumer,  896  ;  Lewin,  Map.  *  Robinson,  i.  410. 

•  See  Ritter,  Tbeil  xvi.  426.  •  Willis  on  Holy  City,  ii.  194. 


564  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LOBD. 

almost  to  a  certainty,  that  at  some  period  the  site  of  the 
present  church  must  have  been  outside  the  walls  of  the 
city ;  and  lends  considerable  probability  to  the  belief  that 
the  rock  excavation,  which  perhaps  exists  in  part  still,  and 
certainly  once  existed  entire,  within  the  marble  casing  of 
the  chapel  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  was  at  any  rate  a  really 
ancient  tomb,  and  not,  as  is  often  rashly  asserted,  a  modern 
structure  intended  to  imitate  it."  The  antiquity  of  this 
rock-tomb  is,  however,  deDied  by  Robinson ;  and  if  this 
could  be  proved,  he  denies  the  conclusion  that  the  second 
wall  must  have  been  to  the  east  of  the  sepulchre. 

Into  a  consideration  of  the  novel  view  propounded  by 
Fergusson,  that  the  sepulchre  was  in  the  rock  now  under 
the  dome  of  the  Mosque  of  Omar,  and  that  this  building  is 
the  identical  church  erected  by  Constantine,  we  are  not 
called  to  enter.  It  is  stated  by  himself,  in  Diet,  of  Bible, 
i.  1018,  &c,  and  rests  mainly  on  architectural  grounds.1 

A  new  method  of  proving  the  genuineness  of  the  pres- 
ent site  was  presented  by  Finlay,  "  On  the  Site  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre,"  1847.  He  supposes  that  the  Roman  govern- 
ment had,  from  time  to  time,  accurate  surveys  made  of  its 
territories,  and  that  "  maps  were  constructed  indicating  not 
only  every  locality  possessing  a  name,  but  so  detailed  that 
every  field  was  measured ; "  and  that  this  was  done  through- 
out the  provinces.  Thus  it  was  in  the  power  of  Constan- 
tine to  trace  the  garden  of  Joseph,  from  the  day  of  the 
crucifixion  down,  through  its  successive  owners,  and  at  any 
time  to  identify  it.  He  was  therefore  able  to  find  it,  even 
though  hidden  under  rubbish  and  covered  over  by  the 
temple  of  Venus.  All  depends  here  upon  the  facts  whether 
such  minute  and  accurate  measurements  were  made  at  in- 
tervals ;  and  if  made,  whether  they  had  been  preserved 

1  For  replies,  see  Williams,  Holy  City,  ii.  90;  Willis,  same,  ii.  196,  note; 
Schaffter,  77  ;  Robinson,  iii.  263 ;  Lewin,  146  ;  Edinburgh  Review,  Oct. 
1860.    See  also  Fergusson's  Answer  to  the  Review,  London,  Murray,  1861. 


SITE   OP  THE   SEPULCHRE  NOT  FORGOTTEN.  565 

from  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  to  the  reign  of  Constantine. 
Either  of  these  is  intrinsically  improbable,  and  anything 
like  demonstrative  proof  seems  to  be  wanting.1 

We  now  come  to  the  historical  question.  It  is  certain 
that  the  places  of  crucifixion  and  burial  must  have  been 
known,  not  only  to  the  disciples,  but  to  the  priests  and 
rulers,  and  to  many  of  the  inhabitants.  It  is  in  the  highest 
degree  improbable  that  they  could  have  been  forgotten  by 
any  who  were  witnesses  of  the  Lord's  death,  or  knew  of 
His  resurrection.  As  the  apostles,  according  to  a  commonly 
received  tradition,  continued  for  a  number  of  years  after 
this  at  Jerusalem,  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  each  site  was 
accurately  known.  Besides,  the  Evangelists,  writing  from 
twenty  to  fifty  years  after  His  death,  mention  distinctly 
Golgotha  and  the  garden.  Down  to  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem by  Titus,  a.  d.  70,  there  can  be  no  question  that 
these  places  were  well  known.  During  the  siege  of  the  city, 
most  or  all  of  the  Jewish  Christians  retired  to  Pella,  but  they 
seem  soon  to  have  returned.*  Was  the  city  so  destroyed 
that  the  former  site  of  the  sepulchre  could  not  be  recog- 
nized ?  This  is  not  claimed  by  any  one.  Robinson  (i.  366) 
speaks  of  it  as  "  a  destruction  terrible,  but  not  total.,, 

If,  then,  the  site  was  known  to  the  Jewish  Christians 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  it  could  not 
well  have  been  forgotten  before  its  second  destruction  by 
Hadrian,  a.  d.  136.  Whether  up  to  this  period  it  had  been 
marked  by  any  monument,  does  not  appear.  This  is  pos- 
sible, although  we  cannot  believe,  as  assumed  by  Chateau- 
briand, that  a  church  was  erected  upon  it.  That  the  city 
was  not  wholly  destroyed  by  Hadrian,  and  that  the  work 
of  rebuilding  began  immediately  after  the  close  of  the  war, 
is  historically  proved.  It  became  in  many  respects  a  new 
city,  taking  the  name  of  Aelia  Capitolina,  by  which  it  was 

*  So  Williams,  Holy  City,  ii.  66 ;  contra,  Schaflfter,  5«. 
'  Giesseler,  L  98. 


566  THE  LIFE   OP   OUB  LOED. 

generally  known  for  many  years.  It  was  at  this  period 
that  the  Jewish  Christian  Church  at  Jerusalem  first  elected 
a  Gentile  bishop  ;  and  Eusebius  gives  a  list  of  his  succes- 
sors, twenty-three  in  number,  down  to  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine.1  From  this  time,  136  to  324  a.  d.,  a  period  of 
about  190  years,  we  know  nothing  of  the  sepulchre  except 
what  we  learn  from  a  statement  of  Eusebius,  that  impious 
men  had  erected  over  it  a  temple  to  the  goddess  Venus,  first 
covering  it  with  earth."  When  this  temple  was  erected, 
or  by  whom,  we  do  not  know.  Jerome,  at  a  later  period, 
speaks  of  a  statue  of  Venus  standing  upon  the  spot,  and 
ascribes  it  to  the  time  of  Hadrian.  That  Hadrian  erected 
upon  the  site  of  the  Jewish  temple  a  temple  to  Jupiter,  is 
well  known.3  It  is  then  possible,  at  least,  that  at  this  time 
a  temple  to  Venus  may  have  been  also  erected  upon  the 
site  of  the  sepulchre ;  the  latter  being  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Christians  a  sacred  spot,  as  was  the  former  in  the  eyes  of 
the  Jews,  and  therefore  both  alike  dishonored  by  the  Ro- 
mans. How  far  the  Roman  government  made  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  Jews  and  the  Christians,  is  not  clear ;  but 
that  Hadrian  was  so  friendly  to  the  latter  that  he  would 
not  erect  a  temple  over  the  sepulchre,  is  not  shown.4  But 
whether  erected  by  Hadrian  or  not,  there  seems  no  good 
reason  for  doubting  the  statement  of  Eusebius.  The  objec- 
tion of  Robinson,  that  his  language  implies  that  Constan- 
tino learned  the  site  by  immediate  revelation,  and  that  there- 
fore it  could  not  have  been  previously  known,  is  hypercriti- 
cal. Eusebius  plainly  means  that  the  thought  of  building  a 
church  over  the  sepulchre,  was  through  divine  impulse.  This 
had  long  been  "  given  over  to  forgetfulness  and  oblivion  " 
in  the  purpose  of  its  enemies ;  it  was  buried  out  of  sight, 
and  nothing  existed  to  bring  it  to  mind  as  the  place  of  the 
Lord's  burial ;  but  he  does  not  say  that  it  was  actually  thus 

1  Williams,  i.  215.  «  Robinson,  iii.  257 ;  Williams,  ii.  239. 

«  Robinson,  i.  370.  «  See  Giesseler,  i.  125. 


GENUINENESS   OF  PRESENT   SEPULCHRE.  567 

forgotten.  "  In  the  days  of  Constantine  not  the  least  doubt 
was  entertained  where  the  sepulchre  was  situate  ;  but  the 
only  hesitation  was,  whether,  by  removing  the  temple,  the 
sepulchre  itself  could  be  recovered." ! 

That  Constantine  erected  a  church  where  the  temple 
of  Venus  stood,  is  admitted ;  that  this  temple  actually 
stood  on  the  site  of  the  sepulchre,  must  rest  upon  the  au- 
thority of  Eusebius.  This  is  supposed  to  find  some  support 
in  the  feet  that  a  coin  of  Antoninus  Pius  contains  a  figure 
of  Venus  standing  in  a  temple  with  the  inscription,  c.  a.  c.  : 
Colonia  Aelia  Capitolina.*  The  fables  related  by  Cyril  and 
others,  in  connection  with  the  Invention  of  the  Cross,  do  by 
no  means  show  that  the  site  of  the  sepulchre  is  fictitious." 
We  cannot  well  doubt,  that  if  its  true  position  was  wholly 
unknown,  and,  for  purposes  of  pious  fraud,  a  new  one  was 
to  be  selected,  one  would  have  been  taken  free  from  such 
obvious  topographical  difficulties  as  encompass  the  present 
site. 

In  concluding  this  brief  statement,  it  may  be  added 
that,  as  the  topographical  argument  now  stands,  it  seems 
to  make  against  the  genuineness  of  the  present  sepulchre. 
Further  excavations  and  researches  may,  however,  wholly 
change  the  aspect  of  the  question.  The  historical  argu- 
ment in  its  favor  has  not  yet  been  set  aside.  Modern 
opinions  are  about  equally  divided.  While  most  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  writers  defend  its  genuineness,  some  deny 
it ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  many  Protestants  defend  it.4 

The  next  day,  that  which  followed  the  day  of  prepara- 
tion,, or  the  Sabbath,  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees  came 

»  Lewin,  155.  »  See  Williams,  i.  240. 

»  See  Winer,  i.  437,  note  6.  Isaac  Taylor  (Ancient  Christianity,  ii.  277) 
argues  more  forcibly  than  fairly  that  the  whole  was  a  stupendous  fraud. 

*  Among  those  not  already  cited,  who  deny  it,  may  be  mentioned :  Wilson, 
Barclay,  Bonar,  Stewart,  Arnold,  Meyer,  Ewald.  Among  those  who  defend 
it :  Teschendorf,  Olin,  Prime,  Lange,  Alford,  Friedlieb,  Lewin.  Among  those 
who  are  undecided  :  Ritter,  Raumer,  Winer,  Bartlett,  Stanley,  Ellicott. 


5g8  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE   LORD. 

to  Pilate,  desiring  that  the  door  of  the  sepulchre  might  be 
sealed,  and  a  watch  set,  to  prevent  the  disciples  from  steal- 
ing the  body;  alleging,  as  the  ground  of  their  fear,  His 
words,  "  After  three  days  I  will  rise  again."  Whether  the 
request  was  made  on  the  Sabbath  itself,  or  upon  the  even- 
ing following,  is  uncertain.1 

Meyer  regards  all  this  account  as  unhistorical,  chiefly 
for  the  reason  that  the  Pharisees  could  not  have  heard 
Christ's  predictions  respecting  His  resurrection ;  or,  at 
least,  could  not  have  thought  them  worthy  of  attention. 
If  the  disciples  did  not  understand  or  believe  these  predic- 
tions, much  less  would  His  enemies.  But  this  by  no  means 
follows.  He  had  openly  spoken  of  His  death  and  resurrec- 
tion to  His  disciples,  (Matt.  xvi.  21  ;  xvii.  22,  23.)  This 
was  then  unintelligible  to  them,  because  they  truly  be- 
lieved that  He  was  the  Christ ;  and  when  He  was  actually 
crucified,  in  their  grief  and  despair  all  remembrance  of  His 
words  seems  to  have  escaped  them.  To  the  Pharisees  He 
had  spoken  of  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonah  as  to  be  ful- 
filled in  Himself,  (Matt.  xii.  40 ;)  and  now  that  He  was 
dead,  they  must  have  thought  of  its  actual  fulfilment. 
Besides,  it  is  scarce  possible  that  they  should  not,  through 
some  of  the  disciples,  have  heard  of  His  words  respecting 
His  resurrection  spoken  to  them.  Judas  must  have  known 
what  his  Lord  said,  and  may  have  told  the  priests.  They 
were  far  too  sagacious  not  to  take  precautions  against  all 
possible  contingencies.  Even  if  they  did  not  believe  His 
resurrection  possible,  and  had  no  faith  in  His  words,  still  it 
was  wise  to  guard  against  the  stealing  of  the  body.  But  it 
is  not  certain  that  they  did  not  fear  that  He  would  rise. 
Did  they  not  know  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  ?  and 
might  not  He  who  then  bade  the  dead  arise,  Himself  come 

1  For  the  former,  Friedlieb ;  for  the  latter,  Alford.  Bucher  puts  it  on  the 
evening  following  the  crucifixion,  or  the  beginning  of  the  Sabbath  ;  so 
Jones. 


GUARDING   OP  THE   SEPULCHRE.  569 

forth  ?  In  their  state  of  mind,  to  seal  the  stone  and  set 
the  watch  was  a  very  natural  precaution. 

But  why  was  not  the  body  at  once  taken  charge  of  by 
the  Pharisees,  and  not  delivered  into  the  hands  of  His  dis- 
ciples ?  Very  likely  the  request  of  Joseph  for  the  body 
was  something  unknown  and  unexpected  to  them ;  but  as 
it  was  given  to  him  by  permission  of  Pilate,  they  could  not 
interfere.  It  was  of  no  importance  in  what  sepulchre  it 
was  placed,  provided  it  was  secure ;  and  doubtless  they 
knew  that  it  was  in  the  sepulchre  ere  they  sealed  the  Btone. 
When  the  stone  was  sealed,  is  not  said :  many  suppose, 
upon  the  evening  following  the  crucifixion.  "They  went 
to  Pilate  that  same  evening,  which  now  no  longer  belonged 
to  Friday,  but  formed  part  of  the  Sabbath."  '  But  let  us 
suppose,  with  Alford,  that  it  "  was  done  in  the  evening 
after  the  termination  of  the  Sabbath."  This  delay  presents 
no  real  difficulty.  "  The  prediction  of  our  Lord  was  that 
He  would  rise  the  third  day ;  and  till  it  was  approaching 
they  would  give  themselves  no  concern  about  His  body. 
The  absence  of  it  from  the  tomb  before  the  commencement 
of  that  day,  would  rather  falsify  the  prediction  than  show 
the  truth  of  it."  '  Perhaps  they  relied  on  the  sanctity  of 
the  Sabbath  as  a  sufficient  preventive  against  His  disciples, 
and  thought  no  guard  necessary  till  the  day  was  past. 
Perhaps  they  supposed  at  first  that  with  His  death  all  cause 
of  apprehension  had  vanished,  and  that  afterward  they  be- 
gan to  reflect,  and  this  step  occurred  to  them.  Of  course 
it  was  in  itself  wholly  unimportant  when  the  stone  was  seal- 
ed, provided  only  that  the  body  was  then  there. 

That  the  account  is  given  by  Matthew  only,  is  readily 
explained  from  the  fact  that  he  wrote  specially  for  the 
Jews,  among  whom  the  report  of  stealing  the  body  had 
been  put  in  circulation.  It  was  omitted  by  Mark  and  Luke, 
who  wrote  for  another  class  of  readers.1 

1  Michaelis  on  Resurrection,  100;  so  McKnight,  Bacher. 

•  Townson,  93.  •  See  Michaelis  on  Resurrection,  98. 


PAKT   VII. 

FROM  THE  RESURRECTION  TO  THE  ASCENSION;  OR  FROM 
SUNDAY,  9th  APRIL,  (17th  NISAN,)  TO  THURSDAY,  MAY 
18th,   783.     A.D.  80. 


Sunday,  17th  Nisan,  9th  April. 


As  the  day  began  to  dawn  there  was  a  great 
earthquake ;  and  an  angel  of  the  Lord,  descending, 
rolled  away  the  stone  from  the  door  of  the  sepulchre, 
and  sat  upon  it.  For  fear  of  him,  the  soldiers  be- 
came as  dead  men.  Immediately  after  came  Mary 
Magdalene,  and  other  women,  to  embalm  the  body. 
As  they  approach  the  sepulchre,  Mary  Magdalene, 
beholding  the  stone  rolled  away,  and  supposing  that 
the  body  had  been  removed  by  the  Jews,  runs  to  find 
Peter  and  John,  to  inform  them.  The  other  women 
proceed  to  the  sepulchre,  and  there  meet  an  angel, 
(or  angels,)  who  tells  them  of  the  Lord's  resurrec- 
tion, and  gives  them  a  message  to  the  disciples. 

Soon  after  they  had  departed,  Peter  and  John, 
who  had  heard  the  story  of  Mary  Magdalene,  come 
in  haste  to  see  what  had  occurred ;  and  Mary  follows 
them.  Entering  the  sepulchre,  they  find  it  empty, 
and  the  grave  clothes  lying  in  order  ;  and  John  then 
believes.  They  leave  the  tomb  to  return,  but  Mary 
remains  behind  weeping.  Looking  into  the  sepul- 
chre, she  sees  two  angels,  and  immediately  after,  the 


Matt.  xxviiL  2-4. 


Matt.  xxviiL  1. 
Mark  xvi  1. 
Luke  xxiv.  1. 
John  xx.  1,  2. 

Mark  xvi.  2-8. 
Lukk  xxiv.  2-8. 
Matt,  xxviii.  6-8 

John  xx.  3-10. 
Lukk  xxiv.  12  &  24. 


John  xx.  11-18. 


JESUS  THE   RISEN   ONE.  571 

Lord  appears  to  her,  and  gives  her  a  message  to  bear    Matt,  xxviii.  9,  10. 
to  the  disciples.     The  accounts  of  the  women  seem    Mark  xvi.  9-11. 
to  the  disciples  as  idle  tales,  and  are  not  believed.     Luke  xxiv.  9-11. 
Upon  the  return  of  the  soldiers  from  the  sepulchre  > 

into  the  city,  the  priests  and  elders,  learning  what    Matt,  xxviii.  11-15. 
had  taken  place,  bribe  them  to  spread  the  report 
that  the  disciples  had  stolen  the  body  away. 

In  our  attempts  to  put  in  order  the  events  from  the 
resurrection  to  the  ascension,  it  is  necessary  to  bear  con- 
stantly in  mind  that  the  Lord  now  appears  under  new 
physical  conditions.  Up  to  His  death  He  had  been  under 
the  usual  limitations  of  our  humanity.  Now  He  is  the  Risen 
One.  Without  entering  into  any  inquiries  as  to  the  nature 
of  His  body  after  the  resurrection,  it  is  certain  that  it  was  in 
many  respects  unlike  what  it  had  been  before.  During  this 
period  of  forty  days,  He  came  and  went,  appeared  and  dis- 
appeared, in  a  most  mysterious  and  inscrutable  manner. 
He  passes,  seemingly  in  an  instant,  from  place  to  place ;  He 
is  seen  by  His  disciples,  and  converses  with  them,  and  yet 
is  not  recognized ;  He  enters  the  room  where  they  are  as- 
sembled while  the  doors  are  shut.  Hence,  in  examining  the 
narrative  of  His  various  appearances  during  this  period,  we 
must  remember  that  He  is  no  more  under  the  ordinary 
laws  of  nature ;  and  that  we  are  in  the  highest  sense  in  the 
region  of  the  supernatural.  Also  the  angels,  of  whose 
modes  of  existence  we  know  so  little,  now  appear  as  His  at- 
tendants, and  manifest  themselves  from  time  to  time  to  the 
disciples. 

Before  attempting  to  form  a  connected  and  complete 
narrative,  let  us  examine  the  statements  of  the  several 
Evangelists  separately,  and  critically  compare  them  with 
each  other.  We  begin  with  John.  This  Evangelist  men- 
tions that  early  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  it  was 
yet  dark,  Mary  Magdalene  came  to  the  sepulchre.  He 
speaks  of  her  only,  but  his  silence  respecting  others  is  no 


572  THE  LIFE  OP   OUR   LORD. 

certain  proof  that  she  was  alone.  Incidental  evidence  that 
others  were  with  her,  is  found  in  the  use  of  the  plural, 
(xx.  2,)  "  We  know  not  where  they  have  laid  Him."  ■  How 
many  constituted  the  party,  must  be  learned  from  the  Syn- 
optists.  Seeing  the  stone  taken  away  from  the  door  of  the 
sepulchre,  she  naturally  supposed  that  the  body  of  Jesus 
had  been  removed  by  the  Jews ;  and  in  her  alarm,  without 
entering  it,  runs  to  announce  the  fact  to  Peter  and  John. 
It  is  not  said  where  she  found  them  ;  but  hearing  her  mes- 
sage, they  hasten  with  all  speed  to  the  tomb,  and  entering 
it,  see  that  it  is  empty,  except  the  linen  clothes  and  napkin. 
It  is  said  by  John  of  himself,  (v.  8,)  M  And  he  saw,  and  be- 
lieved." By  many  this  is  understood  as  meaning  no  more 
than  that  he  believed  what  Mary  had  said  about  the  re- 
moval of  the  body ; "  but  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  gen- 
eral use  of  this  word  by  John,  and  with  the  context,  which 
clearly  implies  that  he  believed  that  Jesus  was  risen.'  The 
two  apostles  return  home,  or  go  to  find  others  of  their 
number.  Mary  Magdalene,  who  had  followed  them  back 
to  the  sepulchre,  remains  to  weep.  Bending  down  and 
looking  into  it,  but  not  entering  it,  she  sees  two  angels, 
who  address  her,  asking  why  she  weeps.  Absorbed  in  her 
grief,  she  does  not  seem  to  have  noticed  the  strangeness  of 
their  appearance  in  such  a  place,  and  hastily  answers  them. 
Turning  backward  she  sees  Jesus,  but  supposes  Him  to  be 
the  gardener,  and  not  till  He  calls  her  by  name  is  He  recog- 
nized. His  words,  (v.  17,)  "Touch  me  not,  for  I  am  not 
yet  ascended  to  my  Father,"  seem  to  point  to  some  move- 
ment on  her  part  to  embrace  Him,  which  He  forbids. 
(See  Matt,  xxviii.  9.)  He  then  gives  her  a  message  to  His 
brethren ;  and  she,  returning  to  the  disciples,  told  them  of 
all  that  had  occurred.    Townson  (121)  regards  this  mes- 

1  Compare  v.  13,  where  the  singular  is  used  ;    so  Norton,  Luthardt, 
Stier. 

9  Ebrard,  Stier,  Newcome.  '  Townson,  Luthardt,  Robinson. 


THE   WOMAN    AT  THE    SEPULCHRE.  573 

sage,  which  is  very  unlike  that  given  by  Matthew,  (xxviii. 
10,)  as  a  voucher  to  the  apostles  that  Mary  Magdalene  had 
actually  seen  Him,  for  He  had  spoken  these  very  words  to 
them  on  the  evening  before  His  death,  (John  xvi.  16,  17.) 
Hearing  them  repeated  from  her  lips,  they  could  not  doubt 
that  He  had  appeared  to  her ;  but,  notwithstanding  this, 
her  testimony  was  not  at  first  believed,  (Mark  xvi.  11.) 

This  narrative  presents  several  questions  that  demand 
examination.  Was  this  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  the 
first  after  Christ's  resurrection  ?  Was  she  alone  when  He 
appeared  to  her  ?  With  what  intent  had  she  gone  to  the 
sepulchre  ?  These  questions  will  be  answered  as  we  exam- 
ine the  accounts  of  the  Synoptists. 

Matthew's  account  of  the  resurrection  stands  in  close 
connection  with  what  he  had  said  of  the  burial,  and  of  the 
guarding  of  the  sepulchre.  He  wishes  to  show  how  all  the 
efforts  of  the  Pharisees  "  to  make  the  sepulchre  sure,"  by 
setting  a  watch  and  sealing  the  stone,  were  made  of  no 
effect  by  the  mighty  power  of  God.  He  sends  His  angel, 
and  the  guards  become  as  dead  men ;  the  seal  is  broken, 
and  the  stone  rolled  away.  Let  us  examine  his  narrative 
in  detail. 

The  two  women,  "Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other 
Mary,"  who  were  left  on  Friday  evening  "sitting  over 
against  the  sepulchre,"  now  reappear  at  the  dawning  of  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  going  "  to  see  the  sepulchre."  Were 
these  two  alone  ?  If  we  turn  to  the  other  Evangelists,  we 
find  that  Mark  mentions  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  mother 
of  James,  and  Salome.  Luke  mentions  Mary  Magdalene, 
Mary  mother  of  James,  and  Joanna,  "and  other  with 
them."  John  mentions  Mary  Magdalene  only.  What  shall 
we  conclude  from  these  discrepancies  ?  Do  the  Evangel- 
ists speak  in  general  terms,  giving  the  names  of  certain 
prominent  members  only  of  the  party,  without  designing  to 
enumerate  all ;   or  do  they  refer  to  two  or  more  distinct 


574  THE  LIFE   OP   OUB  LORD. 

parties,  who  visited  the  sepulchre  at  different  times  ?  The 
former  is  much  the  more  probable.  A  scrupulous  exact- 
ness in  regard  to  the  number  of  the>  persons  witnesses  of  an 
event,  is  by  no  means  characteristic  of  the  Gospels.  The 
Evangelists  do  not  write  as  men  who  are  fearful  that  their 
statements  will  be  discredited,  and  therefore  anxious  to 
confirm  them  by  heaping  up  evidence.  Each  uses  the  facts 
connected  with  the  visit  of  the  women  to  the  sepulchre  in 
such  manner  as  will  best  serve  the  purpose  of  his  special 
narrative.  How  many  women  went,  and  who  they  were — 
circumstances  important  indeed  in  a  court  of  justice — were 
to  them  a  minor  matter,  not  at  all  affecting  the  central  feet 
of  the  resurrection,  which  was  established  by  quite  other 
evidence.  Each  Evangelist  mentions  certain  of  the  women 
by  name,  and  passes  by  others :  the  grounds  of  this  mention 
and  silence  are  not  known  to  us,  but  in  no  degree  affect 
the  truth  of  the  narrative.  John  mentions  Mary  Magda- 
lene only ;  but  this  does  not  exclude  others ;  and  her  lan- 
guage, as  has  been  said,  plainly  implies  that  others  were 
present.  Matthew  had  spoken  of  Mary  Magdalene  and 
Mary  mother  of  James  as  being  at  the  tomb  on  Friday 
evening;  and  he  now  mentions  the  same  two  as  going 
thither  on  Sunday  morning.  These  two  Mark  also  had 
mentioned  as  at  the  burial ;  and  he  now  adds  to  them  Sa- 
lome. Luke  had  spoken  in  general  of  the  women  from  Gali- 
lee, as  beholding  how  the  body  was  laid ;  and  now  men- 
tions by  name  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Joanna,  and  Mary 
mother  of  James;  and  adds,  "and  other  women  that  were 
with  them." 

We  conclude,  then,  that  of  the  Galilean  women,  or  those 
who  came  up  with  the  Lord  from  Galilee,  and  whose  number 
seems  to  have  been  considerable,  all,  or  certainly  most  of 
them,  came  on  the  morning  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  to 
assist  in  embalming  the  body.  That  four  are  mentioned  by 
name,  is  very  probably  owing  to  the  fact  that  they  were 


DESCENT  OF  THE  ANGEL  AND  EARTHQUAKE.    575 

especially  prominent.  Whether  all  came  together  to  the 
sepulchre,  does  not  appear ;  but  it  is  more  likely  that  they 
lodged  in  different  places,  and  met  near  the  tomb  by  agree- 
ment. 

Matthew  speaks  of  the  two  Marys  as  coming  "  to  see  the 
sepulchre ; "  John  does  not  mention  the  object  for  which 
Mary  Magdalene  came ;  but  Luke  and  Mark  speak  of  the 
women  as  coming  to  anoint  the  body.  Beyond  question, 
this  was  the  chief  object.  Affection,  or  a  melancholy  curi- 
osity, might  indeed  have  led  them  to  wish  to  behold  where 
the  Lord  was  laid ;  but  here  was  a  duty  to  be  performed 
of  a  most  sacred  character.  That  Matthew  passes  by  in 
silence  the  facts  that  Nicodemus  brought  spices  on  Friday, 
and  that  the  women  brought  more  on  Sunday  morning,  is 
explained  from  the  scope  of  his  narrative.  In  pursuance  of 
his  purpose  to  show  how  vain  were  all  the  precautions  of 
the  priests  and  Pharisees,  in  sealing  the  stone  and  setting  a 
watch,  he  relates,  and  he  only,  that  there  was  a  great  earth- 
quake ;  for  an  angel,  descending  from  heaven,  rolled  back 
the  stone  from  the  door  and  sat  upon  it ;  and  for  fear  of 
him  the  keepers  did  shake,  and  became  as  dead  men.  The 
connection  between  the  descent  of  the  angel  and  rolling 
away  of  the  stone,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  is 
not  defined.  It  was  the  general  opinion  of  the  fathers,  that 
He  rose  and  left  the  tomb  before  the  stone  was  rolled 
away ;  the  object  of  this  act  by  the  angel  being,  not  to  give 
the  Lord  a  way  of  exit,  but  to  open  the  way  for  the  women 
to  enter.  There  is  no  indication  that  the  soldiers  saw 
Jesus  as  He  left  the  sepulchre,  and  their  terror  is  expressly 
ascribed  to  the  sight,  of  the  angel.  Still,  the  general  tenor 
of  the  narrative  makes  on  us  the  impression  that  the  Lord 
did  leave  the  sepulchre  at  the  time  when  the  stone  was  rolled 
back,  even  if  the  act  of  revivification  was  some  time  earlier. 

Whether  by  the  "  earthquake,"  o-cwt/aos,  we  are  to  un- 
derstand a  literal  earthquake,  has  been  questioned.     Some 


576  THE   LIFE   OP   OUB   LORD. 

would  refer  it  to  the  confusion,  or  commotion,  which  the 
sudden  appearance  of  the  angel  made  among  the  soldiers 
keeping  watch ;  others  to  the  shock  made  by  the  rolling 
away  of  the  stone,  which  was  very  great ;  others  to  a  tem- 
pest, or  tempest  and  earthquake.  If,  however,  as  is  most 
probable,  it  was  a  literal  earthquake,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
it  was  felt  throughout  the  city ;  for  such  an  event,  taken  in 
connection  with  what  occurred  at  the  crucifixion,  could 
scarce  have  passed  unnoticed  by  the  disciples.  "  The  first 
earthquake,"  says  Stier,  "  extended  all  over  Jerusalem  to 
the  temple  and  graves ;  the  second  only  moves  the  stone 
in  Joseph's  garden,  and  scares  the  guards  away." 

It  has  been  inferred  by  some,  from  Matt,  xxviii.  2-5, 
that  the  descent  of  the  angel,  and  rolling  away  of  the  stone, 
were  after  the  women  had  reached  the  sepulchre.  u  *  Be- 
hold there  was,'  "  says  Alford,  "  must  mean  that  the  women 
were  witnesses  of  the  earthquake,  and  that  which  followed."' 
But  the  language  does  not  compel  us  to  this  conclusion ; 
and  indeed  the  more  natural  interpretation  is,  that  these 
events  had  taken  place  while  they  were  on  their  way,  or 
just  before  their  arrival.8  That  Mary  Magdalene  saw  this 
angel,  and  the  rolling  away  of  the  stone,  and  the  opening 
of  the  sepulchre,  is  not  consistent  with  John  xx.  1,  2.  She 
obviously  saw  no  more  than  that  the  door  was  open,  and 
was  afraid  that  the  Jews  had  taken  the  body  away.  It 
may  be  questioned  whether  any  of  the  women  approached 
the  sepulchre  so  long  as  the  angel,  in  that  terrible  glory 
with  which  he  affrighted  the  keepers,  was  still  sitting  upon 
the  stone.  (Compare  Mark  xvi.  5  and  Luke  xxiv.  4.) 
Whether  the  keepers  had  departed  ere  the  women  came,  is 
uncertain.  On  the  one  hand,  the  angel's  address  to  the  latter, 
v.  5,  "  Fear  not  ye,"  where  the  "  ye  "  is  emphatic,  implies 

1  So  Meyer. 

•  "  There  was  (eycvcro)  a  great  earthquake,"  is  translated  by  Campbell 
and  Norton,  "  there  had  been,"  Ac.  See  De  Wette  in  loco.  Ellicott  supposes 
that  "  they  beheld  it  partially,  and  at  a  distance." 


THE   ANGEL   APPEARS   TO   THE   WOMEN.  577 

their  presence  ;  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  they  would  hardly 
have  approached  the  door  if  they  had  seen  the  Roman 
soldiers. 

Mark  says  that  the  women  "  entering  into  the  sepulchre, 
saw  a  young  man  sitting  on  the  right  side."  Did  they  see 
two  angels,  one  without  and  one  within  ?  This  is  affirmed 
by  Greswell,  and  also  that  each  addressed  them  in  the  same 
terms.  But  this  is  intrinsically  improbable.  There  is 
nothing  in  Matthew's  narrative  that  forbids  us  to  suppose 
that  the  angel,  whose  first  appearance  had  special  reference 
to  the  soldiers  and  the  opening  of  the  door,  was  not  seen 
by  the  women  at  all  till  they  were  about  to  enter,  or  had 
actually  entered,  the  sepulchre.  Then  he  addresses  them, 
and  invites  them  "  to  come  and  see  the  place  where  the 
Lord  lay."  It  may  be  that  the  sepulchre  had  a  porch  or 
entrance,  from  which  all  the  interior  could  be  seen.  "  There 
is  no  allusion  in  the  Scripture  to  a  vestibule  or  outer  cave ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  to  contradict  its 
existence ;  and  the  common  arrangement  of  the  Jewish 
sepulchres  make  it  probable  that  there  was  one." l 

The  mention  of  the  two  angels  by  Luke  (xxiv.  4)  will 
be  considered  when  his  account  comes  before  us. 

After  receiving  the  message,  Matthew  adds  that  the 
women  "departed  quickly  from  the  sepulchre  with  fear 
and  great  joy :  and  did  run  to  bring  His  disciples  word." 
This  is  seemingly  at  variance  with  Mark's  statement,  (xvi. 
8,)  that  "  They  went  out  quickly  and  fled  from  the  sepul- 
chre, for  they  trembled  and  were  amazed ;  neither  said 
they  any  thing  to  any  man,  for  they  were  afraid."  Alford 
affirms  that  the  two  accounts  cannot  be  reconciled.  But 
the  discrepancy  is  more  apparent  than  real.    According  to 

1  Willia  in  Holy  City,  ii.  196  ;  see  Townson,  80 ;  Lichtenstein,  466.    The 
distinction  sometimes  taken  between  ixvy\fj.ttov  and  raQos — the  former  as  the 
name  of  the  whole  sepulchre,  including  the  porch  or  anteroom ;   the  latter 
as  the  place  where  the  body  was  deposited — does  not  seem  well  supported. 
25 


578  THE  LIFE   OP   OUB  LORD. 

Mark,  the  women  were  afraid  and  amazed,  or,  more  literally, 
"  trembling  and  ecstasy  held  them ;  "  a  form  of  expression 
nearly  parallel  to  Matthew's,  "  with  fear  and  great  joy." 
They  said  nothing  to  any  one.  What  does  this  mean  ? 
That  they  never  told  any  one  what  they  had  seen  ?  This 
is  contrary  to  Luke  xxiv.  9,  and  intrinsically  improbable. 
The  obvious  meaning  is,  that  they  did  not  tell  it  to  any  one 
but  the  disciples.  They  said  nothing  to  the  strangers  whom 
they  met  by  the  way,  but  hastened  to  find  those  for  whom 
their  message  was  intended.  That  on  finding  the  apostles 
they  continued  silent,  is  neither  implied  in  the  narrative, 
nor  supported  by  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  No  such 
overpowering  fear  seized  them  at  the  sight  of  the  angel  as 
seized  the  keepers,  and  yet  the  latter,  speedily  recovering 
themselves,  went  to  the  city  and  showed  to  the  priests  all 
that  had  been  done. 

Matthew  adds,  (vs.  9,  10,)  "Behold  Jesus  met  them, 
saying,  All  hail.1  And  they  came,  and  held  Him  by  the 
feet,  and  worshipped  Him.  Then  said  Jesus  unto  them, 
Be  not  afraid :  go,  tell  my  brethren  that  they  go  into  Gali- 
lee, and  there  shall  they  see  me."  When,  and  with  whom, 
was  this  interview  ?  Apparently  the  Lord  met  the  women 
as  they  were  going  from  the  sepulchre  into  the  city  to  find 
the  disciples.  But  this  has  been  often  questioned.  New- 
come,  and  many,  suppose  that  the  women  bore  to  the  dis- 
ciples the  message  of  the  angel,  (v.  V,)  and  then  returned 
to  the  tomb,  and  that  upon  their  second  departure  Jesus 
appeared  to  them.9  Greswell  puts  this  meeting  several 
days  after  the  day  of  the  resurrection.  Rejecting  these 
constructions  as  forced,  we  hold  to  the  obvious  tenor  of 

i  The  received  text  has,  "  And  as  they  went  to  tell  His  disciples,"  Ac, 
but  this  clause  is  omitted  by  Teschendorf ;  so  Alford  and  Mever. 

»  SeeEllicott,  390,  note,  who  says  :  "  After  the  delivery  of  the  first  tidines 
to  the  apostles,  they  directed  their  steps  back  again  to  the  sepulchre,  and 
that  it  was  on  their  way  there  that  the  Lord  vouchsafed  to  appear  to 
them." 


TO    WHOM   JESUS   FIEST   APPEARS.  579 

the  narrative,  and  place  this  meeting  while  the  women  were 
returning  from  the  sepulchre,  soon  after  the  vision  of  the 
angel.  But  who  were  these  women?  Apparently  Mary 
Magdalene  and  the  other  Mary.  Were  there  then  two 
appearances  the  same  morning  to  Mary  Magdalene ;  or,  are 
this  and  that  mentioned  by  John  (xx.  14-18)  one  and  the 
same  ?  The  point  is  one  of  importance,  and  needs  careful 
examination. 

While  from  John's  language  it  would  appear  that  Mary 
Magdalene  visited  the  sepulchre  alone,  from  the  Synoptists 
it  appears  that  she  was  accompanied  by  others.  Leaving 
these,  she  ran  to  call  Peter  and  John,  and  followed  them 
back  to  the  sepulchre ;  and  here  Jesus  appeared  to  her. 
Was  she  now  alone  ?  This  is  the  natural  construction  of 
the  language.  Every  circumstance  indicates  that  she  alone 
saw  him.  This  is  confirmed  by  Mark's  words,  (xvi.  9,)  "He 
appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene."  If  she  had  not  been 
alone,  this  could  not  have  been  said.  Taking  then  as  cer- 
tain that  Jesus  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene,  and  that 
no  others  were  present,  can  the  account  of  Matthew  bo 
referred  to  this  appearance  ?  We  have  seen  that  the  men- 
tion of  the  two,  Mary  Magdalene  and  Mary  mother  of 
James,  does  not  show  that  others  did  not  accompany  them 
to  the  tomb.  If  Mary  Magdalene  separated  herself  from 
this  party,  and,  returning  to  the  sepulchre  after  the  others 
had  left  it,  then  beheld  Jesus,  could  Matthew  speak  of  it 
in  the  general  terms  which  he  uses  ?  From  his  words  it 
would  appear  that  more  than  one  were  present.  The  plural 
is  used  throughout :  u  ye,"  "  they,"  "  them  "  ;  but  this  is 
not  conclusive,  since  we  may  say,  with  Krafft,  that  the 
plural  is  here  rather  a  generic  than  a  numerical  designation. 
Also,  the  circumstances  mentioned  by  Matthew  seem  in 
many  points  unlike  those  mentioned  by  John,  both  as  to 
the  place  where  Jesus  appeared,  the  words  which  He  spake, 
and  the  demeanor  and  language  of  the  women.    Still,  the 


580  THE  LIFE  OF   OUE  LORD. 

tenor  of  the  narrative  leads  us  to  the  result  that  Matthew 
states  in  general  what  John  gives  in  detail.  The  purpose 
of  the  latter  leads  him  to  give  special  prominence  through- 
out his  Gospel  to  the  words  of  Jesus  ;  and  His  words  here 
to  Mary  Magdalene  are  of  peculiar  interest,  and  are  there- 
fore recorded.  The  former,  whose  account  is  adapted  to 
meet  the  report  current  among  the  Jews,  that  the  disciples 
had  stolen  the  body  away,  contents  himself  with  saying 
generally  that  the  Lord  first  appeared  to  certain  women, 
and  that  they  held  Him  by  the  feet  and  worshipped  Him. 
The  important  facts  in  Matthew's  account  are,  that  to  the 
women  a  vision  of  angels  appeared,  announcing  the  Lord's 
resurrection;  and  that  afterward  the  Lord  himself  appeared 
to  them.  How  many  there  were  of  the  women,  and  whether 
the  two  whom  he  mentions  as  having  seen  the  angels,  saw 
also  the  Lord,  are  but  incidental  and  unimportant  circum- 
stances. 

"We  conclude  then  that,  although  a  number  of  women 
visited  the  sepulchre,  and  several  of  them  saw  the  angels, 
or  an  angel,  to  Mary  Magdalene  alone  did  Jesus  himself 
appear.  We  thus  make  the  accounts  of  Matthew  and  John 
refer  to  the  same  event.1 

There  are  some,  who,  making  two  appearances  of  the 
Lord  to  the  women,  attempt  to  avoid  the  difficulty  that, 
according  to  Matthew,  the  women  must  have  reached  the 
disciples  before  Mary  Magdalene  returned  to  the  sepulchre, 
and  therefore  could  not  have  seen  Jesus  at  this  time,  by 
denying  that  the  first  appearance  was  to  Mary  Magdalene, 
as  is  generally  assumed.  It  is  said  that  the  words  of  Mark, 
(xvi.  9,)  "  Now  when  Jesus  was  risen  early  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  He  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magdalene,"  do  not 
mean  that  His  first  appearance,  absolutely  speaking,  was  to 
her,  but  that  the  first  of  the  appearances  related  by  Mark 
was  to  her.  It  is  remarked  by  Robinson  ■ :  "  Mark  narrates 

1  So  Lightfoot,  Krafft,  Liechtenstein,  Wieseler,  Da  Costa. 
a  Har.  232. 


JESUS  FIRST  SEEN  BY  MARY   MAGDALENE.  581 

three,  and  only  three,  appearances  of  our  Lord;  of  these  three 
that  to  Mary  Magdalene  takes  place  first,  and  that  to  the 
assembled  disciples  the  same  evening  occurs  last."  Thus 
interpreted,  the  Lord  may  have  appeared  first  of  all  to  the 
women  departing  from  the  sepulchre,  and  then,  a  few 
minutes  later,  to  Mary  Magdalene.  But  the  great  body 
of  commentators  interpret  Mark's  words  as  referring  to 
His  first  appearance  to  any  one  after  His  resurrection.1 

In  immediate  connection  with  the  departure  of  the 
women  to  announce  the  resurrection  to  His  friends,  Mat- 
thew relates  the  departure  of  the  soldiers  to  announce  it 
to  His  enemies.  The  latter  incident  will  be  considered  by 
and  by. 

From  Matthew's  narrative  we  turn  to  that  of  Mark." 
The  main  points  in  which  the  two  differ  have  been  already 
noticed,  but  Mark  adds  some  interesting  particulars.  The 
subject  of  conversation  with  the  women  as  they  approach 
the  sepulchre,  is,  how  the  stone  shall  be  rolled  away ;  but 
advancing,  they  see  that  it  is  already  rolled  away."  In  men- 
tioning the  fact  that  Jesus  appeared  first  to  Mary  Magda- 
lene, Mark  adds,  u  out  of  whom  He  had  cast  seven  devils." 
This  may  be  to  designate  her  in  distinction  from  others, 
but  more  probably  is  explanatory  of  the  high  honor  that 
was  given  her.  Her  faith  had  been  great,  and  here  was 
her  reward. 

We  turn  now  to  Luke.     He  had  related  (xxiii.  55,  56) 

»  So  West,  Greswell,  Newcome,  Krafll,  Ellicott,  Wieseler;  Alexander  is 
undecided. 

»  Many  regard  the  latter  portion  of  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  this  Evangelist, 
vs.  9-20,  as  not  his  own,  bat  as  added  bj  another  at  a  later  period ;  so  Tesch- 
endorf, Alford,  Meyer.  Some,  as  Ebrard,  make  it  a  later  addition  of  Mark 
himself.  Alexander  defends  the  present  conclusion  as  the  original  one  of  the 
Evangelist 

»  Lewin  (159)  infers  from  the  narratives  that  the  stone  was  a  lnr<re  circu- 
lar one,  moving  in  a  groove,  cat  laterally  in  the  front  of  the  sepulchre.  A 
specimen  of  this  kind  of  stone  door  is  still  to  be  seen  at  the  "  Tombs  of  the 
Kings,"  at  Jerusalem. 


582  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB  LOBD. 

that  the  women  which  came  with  Jesus  from  Galilee,  fol- 
lowed His  body  to  the  tomb,  and  beheld  the  sepulchre,  and 
how  the  body  was  laid.  Returning,  they  prepared  spices 
and  ointments,  and,  resting  the  Sabbath,  went  early  the 
next  morning,  (xxiv.  1,)  taking  the  spices  they  had  pre- 
pared.1 The  names  of  these  women  were,  (v.  10,)  Mary 
Magdalene,  Joanna,  and  Mary  mother  of  James ;  but  others 
were  with  them,  whose  names  are  not  mentioned.'  In  what 
relation  does  this  visit  stand  to  that  of  Matthew  and  Mark? 
Some  have  supposed  them  to  be  wholly  distinct.*  It  is 
said  that  there  were  two  parties  of  women ;  the  first  of 
which  consisted  of  the  two  Marys  and  Salome,  the  second 
of  Joanna  and  others,  among  whom  was  probably  Susanna. 
In  proof  that  there  were  two  parties,  several  points  of  dif- 
ference in  the  narrations  of  Matthew  and  Mark  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  Luke  on  the  other,  are  made  prominent : 
1st.  That,  according  to  the  former,  the  women  prepared 
their  spices  after  the  Sabbath ;  according  to  the  latter,  be- 
fore the  Sabbath.  2d.  That,  according  to  the  former,  they 
saw  but  one  angel ;  according  to  the  latter,  they  saw  two  ; 
and  also  that  the  angelic  messages  are  unlike.  3d.  That, 
according  to  the  latter,  Peter,  hearing  the  report  of  the 
women,  runs  to  the  sepulchre ;  but  of  this  the  former 
makes  no  mention. 

Before  considering  these  points  of  difference,  let  us  note 
the  character  of  Luke's  narrative.  Is  he  giving  a  particu- 
lar account  of  what  happened  to  a  certain  party  or  number 
of  women ;  or  is  he  summing  up  what  happened  to  the 
women  generally,  without  distinction  of  parties  or  indi- 
viduals ?    The  latter  is  most  probable.     If,  as  is  claimed, 

1  Teschendorf  omits,  "  And  certain  with  them,"  which  is  in  the  received 
text ;  so  Alford. 

s  The  form  of  expression,  eu  Xowrcu,  seems  to  embrace  all  the  Galilean 
women.  * 

3  West,  50 ;  Greswell,  iii.  264. 


CHARACTER    OF   LUKE'S   NARRATIVE.  583 

there  were  two  distinct  parties,  what  happened  to  one  did 
not  to  the  other ;  and  the  account  here  must  refer  to  one 
party  only.  But  if  this  relates  merely  to  what  Joanna  and 
her  companions  saw  and  heard,  why  is  the  name  of  Mary 
Mi^dalene  mentioned?  She  was  not  present  with  them, 
and  did  not  see  these  angels,  or  hear  their  message.  The 
mention  of  her  name  shows  that  Luke  is  giving  a  summary 
of  what  occurred,  a  general  statement  of  the  facts,  without 
distinction  of  witnesses.  A  number  of  women  go  to  the 
sepulchre ;  find  the  stone  rolled  away,  and  the  tomb  empty ; 
are  in  perplexity  to  know  what  has  become  of  the  body ; 
see  a  vision  of  angels,  who  give  them  a  message ;  return 
and  tell  the  disciples,  and  are  not  believed,  only  Peter  and 
others  (see  xxiv.  24)  go  to  see  for  themselves :  this  is  the 
substance  of  Luke's  narrative.  It  is  an  outline  of  what 
occurred  in  the  early  part  of  the  day  to  the  women,  but 
without  entering  into  any  details.  Why  he  omits  all  men- 
tion of  the  fact  that  Jesus  appeared  to  Mary  Magdalene, 
and  narrates  His  appearance  to  the  two  disciples  on  their 
way  to  Emmaus,  as  if  it  were  the  first,  we  can  but  conjec- 
ture. That  he  does  not  mention  it  here,  may  be  explained 
as  springing  from  the  scope  of  the  narrative,  which  repre- 
sents that  the  two  disciples,  leaving  the  city  before  the  ap- 
pearance to  her  was  known,  had  heard  only  of  the  angelic 
announcement  that  He  was  alive. 

If  this  be  a  correct  view  of  Luke's  narrative,  all  the 
supposed  discrepancies  between  him  on  the  one  side,  and 
Matthew  and  Mark  on  the  other,  are  readily  removed. 
The  first,  in  regard  to  the  time  of  the  preparation  of  the 
spices,  has  already  been  considered.  The  second,  in  regard 
to  the  number  of  angels,  finds  its  explanation  in  the  fact 
that  if  the  women  in  Matthew  and  Mark  saw  but  one,  ac- 
cording to  John,  Mary  Magdalene  saw  two ;  and  Luke 
gives  the  greater  number.  He  simply  says  that  "  two  men 
stood  by  them  (^rearr/cav)  in  shining  garments,"  but  with- 


584  THE  LIFE   OF   OtXB  LOBD. 

out  any  details.  The  message  given  by  them  is  substan- 
tially the  same  in  the  three  Evangelists.  The  third,  in  re- 
gard to  the  running  of  Peter  to  the  sepulchre,  is  a  brief 
statement  of  the  same  fact  that  John  (xx.  3,  4)  relates  more 
at  length.  That  Luke  was  aware  that  Peter  was  not  alone 
appears  from  v.  24  :  "  And  certain  of  them  which  were  with 
us,  went  to  the  sepulchre."  There  is  no  necessity  to  say,  as 
West  and  Townson  do,  that  Luke  refers  to  another  and 
later  visit. 

No  notice  has  yet  been  taken  of  the  time  when  these 
various  events  are  said  by  the  several  Evangelists  to  have 
taken  place.  For  the  sake  of  convenience  we  bring  to- 
gether here  their  statements.  Our  main  inquiry  concerns 
the  time  when  the  women  first  visited  the  sepulchre.  In 
Matthew,  (xxviii.  1,)  it  is  spoken  of  as  u  In  the  end  of  the 
Sabbath,  as  it  began  to  dawn  toward  the  first  day  of  the 
week."1  As  the  Sabbath  ended  at  sunset,  this  may  be 
understood,  as  by  Patritius,  of  its  last  hours,  or  those  just 
before  sunset.1  But  most  agree  that  the  natural  day,  com- 
mencing at  sunrise  and  ending  at  sunset,  is  spoken  of;  and 
that  the  coming  of  the  women  was  at  the  dawn  of  the  day 
following  the  Sabbath.'  Mark  (xvi.  2)  says :  "  And  very  early 
in  the  morning,  the  first  day  of  the  week,  they  came  unto  the 
sepulchre,  at  the  rising  of  the  sun,"  avaniXavros  rov  rjkiav. 
Luke  (xxiv.  1)  says:  "Now  upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  very  early  in  the  morning,  opdpov  /3a0cos,  they  came," 
&c.  John  (xx.  1)  says:  "The  first  day  of  the  week  com- 
eth  Mary  Magdalene  early,  when  it  was  yet  dark,"  Trpux, 
o-Korias  en  ov<ri79.  Let  us  note  the  exact  force  of  each 
of  these  statements.     "The  beginning  of  the  dawn,"  in 

1  This  is  translated  by  Greswell :  "  Now  late  in  the  week,  at  the  hour  of 
dawn,  against  the  first  day  of  the  week."  By  Norton  :  "  And  the  Sabbath 
being  over,  in  the  dawn  of  the  first  day  of  the  week." 

a  See  Luke  xxiii.  54,  where  the  Greek  term  nrifaxTKu  is  the  same. 

*  See  Alford  and  Meyer  in  loco. 


TDCE   OF  VISITING  THE  SEPULCHRE.  5S5 

Matthew,  was  about  5  o'clock  a.  m.,  it  being  then  early  in 
April.1  The  "  very  early  "  of  Mark  is  somewhat  indefinite. 
If  TrpoK  be  taken  here  as  in  xiii.  35,  for  the  "morning 
watch,"  it  would  embrace  3-6  a.  m.  ;  if  used  indefinitely, 
it  denotes  simply  the  early  morning.  Taken  in  connection 
with  Auu',  "  very,"  as  here,  it  is  parallel  to  the  "  day  dawn  " 
of  Matthew,  or  u  while  it  was  yet  dark  "  of  John. 

But  how  can  this  be  reconciled  with  that  further  note 
of  time  which  Mark  gives,  "  at  the  rising  of  the  sun,"  or 
"  the  sun  having  arisen  "  ?  If  both  expressions  be  strictly 
taken,  the  Evangelist  is  inconsistent  with  himself.'  Various 
solutions  have  been  proposed.  Townsend  would  make  a 
period  at  sepulchre,  and  connect  the  "  rising  of  the  sun  " 
with  the  clause  following,  making  it  to  read :  "  At  the 
rising  of  the  sun  they  said  among  themselves,"  &c.  But 
this  is  indefensible.  West,  (42,)  followed  by  Greswell, 
would  make  the  women  to  have  reached  the  sepulchre  at 
the  rising  of  the  sun,  but  to  have  left  their  homes  much 
earlier.  This,  however,  does  not  meet  the  difficulty, 
the  verb  u  they  came "  being  qualified  by  both  marks  of 
time.  Ewald  (vi.  73,  note)  regards  "  at  the  rising  of  the 
sun "  an  addition  to  the  original  Gospel.  This  is  to  cut 
the  knot.  Newcome  would  change  the  reading,  but  with- 
out authority.  But,  in  truth,  no  solution  is  necessary. 
It  is  most  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  Mark  should  not 
know  what  he  designed  to  say,  and  contradict  himself  in 
the  compass  of  a  single  sentence.  He  evidently  speaks  in 
general  terms.  If,  then,  "  very  early "  be  understood  as 
the  dawning  day,  as  is  most  probable,  the  phrase  "  at  the 
rising  of  the  sun  "  denotes  the  same  period  which  we  des- 
ignate as  the  sun-rising,  or  that  period  from  the  first  il- 
lumination of  the  sky  till  the  sun  is  above  the  horizon.' 

'  Winer,  ii.  ,r>60.  »  So  Meyer,  Alford. 

»  See  Robinson,  Har.  230,  who  cites  several  passages  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  which  a  like  form  of  expression  is  used  :  Judges  ix.  S3;  Psalms  civ. 
22 ;  2  Kings  iii.  22.    So  Heugttteuberg  and  Alexander. 
25* 


586  THE  LITE   OF   OUR   LORD. 

Thus  Mark  is  both  in  harmony  with  himself,  and  with  the 
other  Evangelists.  The  "very  early  in  the  morning"  of 
Luke,  the  early  morning  twilight,  or  deep  dawn,  is  plainly 
identical  with  "  the  dawning  "  of  Matthew,  and  the  "  very 
early "  of  Mark.  The  "  early  "  of  John  is  more  exactly 
defined  by  the  addition  "  when  it  was  yet  dark,"  or  before 
it  was  yet  clear  day.  It  was  at  .least  sufficiently  light  for 
Mary  Magdalene  to  see  that  the  stone  was  rolled  away. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  only  discrepancy  in  regard  to 
the  time  of  the  women's  visiting  the  sepulchre,  arises  from 
Mark's  statement  that  they  came  "  at  the  rising  of  the 
sun."  If  this  phrase  should  be  pressed  to  the  letter,  as 
skeptical  critics  for  the  most  part  do,  he  would  not  only 
contradict  himself,  but  also  the  statement  of  John  that 
Mary  Magdalene  came  "  while  it  was  yet  dark."  It  should, 
however,  be  noted,  that  some  interval  must  have  elapsed 
between  the  departure  of  the  women  from  their  homes  and 
their  arrival  at  the  sepulchre,  and  that  the  Evangelists  may 
speak  of  one  or  the  other  period  without  special  discrim- 
ination. 

We  may,  without  violence,  take  Mark's  expression  in 
the  large  sense,  as  embracing  the  whole  period  from  early 
dawn  till  actual  sunrising.  The  women,  however  early 
they  may  have-  left  their  homes,  could  scarcely  expect  to 
begin  their  work  of  embalming  the  body  till  it  was  broad 
daylight.  Lightfoot  (on  Mark  xvi.  2)  mentions  a  fourfold 
distinction  of  twilight  among  the  Rabbins:  1st.  "The 
hind  of  the  morning,  or  first  appearance  of  light."  2d. 
"When  one  may  distinguish  between  purple  color  and 
white."  3d.  "  When  the  east  begins  to  lighten."  4th. 
"  Sunrise."  He  would  apply  these  four  periods  to  the  state- 
ments of  the  four  Evangelists— the  first  to  Matthew,  the 
second  to  John,  the  third  to  Luke,  the  fourth  to  Mark. 
There  seem  no  good  grounds  for  this. 

All  the  Evangelists  imply  that  the  Lord's  resurrection 


DIFFERING    ARRANGEMENTS    OF   HARMONISTS.  587 

Was  very  early,  for  the  women  find  the  sepulchre  empty ; 
but  none  give  any  note  of  time  except  Mark  (xvi.  9 :)  "  Now 
when  Jesus  was  risen  early  the  first  day  of  the  week,"  &c. 
Here  it  is  seen  that  Mark  speaks  only  indefinitely,  for  the 
Lord  arises  "  early,"  wpon,  whilst  the  women  came  "  very 
early,"  Xtav  irpwc  Some,  however,  would  make  this  define 
the  time  when  the  Lord  appeared  to  Mary.1 

This  examination  of  the  several  narratives  shows  us  how 
many  of  the  data  are  wanting  which  are  necessary  to  enable 
us  to  form  a  regular,  harmonious,  and  complete  history  of 
this  eventful  morning.  Each  of  the  Evangelists  gives  us 
some  particulars  which  the  others  omit,  but  no  one  of  them 
aims  to  give  us  a  full  and  connected  account ;  and  for  us 
to  supply  the  missing  links  in  the  chain,  is  impossible.  To 
a  superficial  examination  there  seem  many  discrepancies, 
not  to  say  contradictions,  but  a  thorough  investigation 
shows  that  the  points  of  real  difference  are  very  few ;  and 
that  in  several  ways  even  these  differences  may  be  removed. 
Whilst  thus  we  cannot  say  of  any  order  which  we  can 
frame  that  it  is  certain,  we  can  say  of  several  that  they  are 
probable ;  and  if  they  cannot  be  proved,  neither  can  they 
be  disproved.  This  is  sufficient  for  him  who  finds  in  the 
moral  character  of  the  Gospels  the  highest  vouchers  for 
their  historic  truth. 

To  bring  before  the  reader  some  of  the  many  possible 
arrangements  of  these  events,  and  to  show  what  the  special 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  harmonist  are,  we  select  the 
following,  which  have  found  many  adherents.  It  will  be 
noted  that  the  point  which  chiefly  determines  the  order,  is 
whether  Jesus  appeared  once  or  twice  to  the  women.  We 
begin  with — 

lAghtfoot.  1.  Earthquake,  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 
2.  Visit  of  Mary  Magdalene  and  other  women  to  the  tomb, 
which  they  reach  just  as  the  sun  is  up.    They  are  told 

1  See  Meyer  in  loco. 


588  THE   LIFE   OF   OUR   LORD. 

of  His  resurrection  by  the  angels,  and  go  back  to  the  dis- 
ciples. 3.  Peter  and  John  go  to  the  sepulchre,  followed  by 
Mary  Magdalene.  They  return,  and  she  remains.  4.  Christ 
appears  to  her,  and  she  takes  Him  for  the  gardener.  She 
afterward  embraces  His  feet,  kissing  them.  Thus  Matthew 
xxviii.  9  and  John  xx.  14  refer  to  the  same  appearance. 

Lardner.  1.  The  women,  with  Mary  Magdalene,  go  to 
the  sepulchre  and  find  it  empty.  2.  Mary,  with  others,  goes 
to  the  apostles  Peter  and  John.  3.  They  come  to  the  tomb, 
and  then  return  home.  4.  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  others 
follow  the  two  apostles  back  to  the  tomb,  and  remain  there 
after  Peter  and  John  are  gone.  5.  Jesus  apj>ears  to  them 
all  there.  6.  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  others  go  and  an- 
nounce all  to  the  disciples.  7.  Jesus  appears  to  the  two 
disciples.  8.  He  appears  to  Peter.  9.  He  appears  to  the 
Eleven.  Here,  also,  the  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene 
mentioned  by  John,  and  that  to  the  two  Marys  mentioned 
by  Matthew,  are  made  the  same. 

West.  1.  The  two  Marys  and  Salome  visit  the  tomb, 
the  angel  having  before  rolled  away  the  stone,  and  the 
guards  being  gone.  2.  Mary  Magdalene,  seeing  the  stone 
rolled  away,  runs  to  find  Peter  and  John.  3.  Mary,  mother 
of  James,  and  Salome,  remaining,  see  an  angel,  and  receive 
his  message.  Greatly  terrified,  they  depart.  4.  Peter  and 
John  visit  the  sepulchre,  and  depart.  5.  Mary  Magdalene, 
having  followed  them,  sees  the  two  angels,  and  then  the 
Lord  himself.  6.  The  Lord  appears  to  the  other  Mary  and 
Salome.  7.  Joanna  and  her  party  of  women  come  to  the 
sepulchre,  see  two  angels,  and  hear  from  them  that  Jesus 
is  risen.  They  depart  and  announce  to  the  disciples  that 
they  had  seen  a  vision  of  angels.  8.  Peter  runs  a  second 
time  to  the  sepulchre,  but  sees  only  the  linen  clothes.  9. 
The  two  disciples  having  heard  the  report  of  Joanna  and 
her  party,  set  out  for  Emmaus.  Here  the  appearances 
mentioned  by  John  and  Matthew  are  distinguished. 


DIFFERING  ARRANGEMENTS   OF   HARMONISTS.  589 

Townson.  1.  The  two  Marys  and  Salome  go  to  the 
tomb,  and  while  they  are  on  the  way  the  angel  descends 
and  rolls  away  the  stone.  They  reach  it  at  the  rising  of 
the  sun.  2.  Mary  Magdalene  goes  for  Peter  and  John. 
3.  The  other  Mary  and  Salome  enter  the  porch  of  the 
sepulchre,  see  an  angel,  receive  his  message,  and  depart  in 
great  fear.  4.  Peter  and  John  come  and  visit  the  tomb. 
5.  Mary  Magdalene  returns  and  sees  first  the  angels,  and 
then  the  Lord.  6.  Mary  Magdalene  departing,  falls  in  with 
the  other  Mary  and  Salome,  and  to  them  together  Jesus 
appears  the  second  time.  V.  Joanna  and  her  party  now 
come,  and,  entering  the  tomb,  see  two  angels.  They  return, 
and  confirm  to  the  disciples  what  the  other  women  had 
already  reported.  8.  Peter  goes  a  second  time  to  the 
sepulchre,  and  finds  only  the  clothes.  9.  The  two  disciples 
set  out  for  Emmaus.  10.  The  Lord  appears  to  Peter. 
Here  are  made  two  successive  appearances  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalene :  first  when  alone,  second  to  her  in  company  with  the 
other  Mary. 

Newcome.  1.  The  two  Marys,  Salome,  Joanna,  and 
others,  go  to  the  sepulchre,  and,  finding  the  stone  removed, 
enter  the  tomb.  Two  angels  appear  to  them,  and  one 
gives  them  a  message.  2.  They  return  to  Jerusalem,  and 
Mary  Magdalene  communicates  the  message  to  Peter  and 
John,  and  the  other  women  to  the  other  disciples.  3.  Pe- 
ter and  John  go  to  the  sepulchre,  and  return.  4.  The  two 
disciples,  having  heard  the  report  of  the  women  and  of 
Peter  and  John,  depart  for  Emmaus.  5.  Mary  Magdalene 
and  the  other  women  follow  Peter  and  John  to  the  tomb. 
She,  arriving  before  them,  or  following  after  them,  sees  the 
angels,  and  afterward  the  Lord.  6.  She  joins  the  other 
women  who  were  near  by,  and,  as  they  were  returning  to 
Jerusalem,  Jesus  meets  them.  7.  He  appears  to  Peter.  8. 
He  appears  to  the  two  at  Emmaus.    Here  Mary  Magdalene 


590  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LORD. 

alone  first  sees  the  Lord,  and  afterward  she  sees  Him  the 
second  time  in  company  with  others. 

Da  Costa.  1.  The  two  Marys,  Joanna,  Salome,  and 
others,  start  before  daybreak  for  the  sepulchre,  and  find 
the  stone  rolled  away.  2.  Mary  Magdalene  runs  to  find 
Peter  and  John.  3.  The  other  women  enter  the  sepulchre, 
see  the  angels,  receive  their  message,  and  return  to  the 
disciples.  4.  Peter  and  John  visit  the  sepulchre  and  de- 
part home.  5.  Mary  Magdalene,  who  had  followed  them, 
sees  first  the  angels,  and  then  the  Lord,  and  returns  to  the 
disciples.  6.  Jesus  appears  to  the  two  at  Emmaus.  7.  He 
appears  to  Peter.  Here  the  Lord  appears  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalene only. 

Gfreswell.  1.  Two  parties  of  women — one  the  two 
Marys  and  Salome,  the  other,  Joanna  and  some  with  her — 
set  out  from  different  quarters  to  go  to  the  sepulchre. 
While  on  their  way,  the  stone  is  rolled  away  and  the  Lord 
rises.  2.  The  Marys  and  Salome  arrive  first  at  the  sepul- 
chre about  sunrise.  Mary  Magdalene  runs  to  find  Peter 
and  John.  The  other  two  enter  the  sepulchre,  see  an  angel, 
receive  a  message,  and  depart.  8.  The  party  of  Joanna 
arrives,  sees  two  angels,  and  returns  to  the  disciples.  4. 
Peter  and  John  visit  the  sepulchre.  5.  Mary  Magdalene, 
who  had  followed  Peter  and  John,  sees  two  angels,  and 
then  Christ.  6.  The  two  disciples  depart  for  Emmaus, 
before  Mary  Magdalene  reports  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to 
her.  Upon  the  way  the  Lord  meets  them.  7.  He  appears 
to  Peter.  8.  He  appears  to  the  Eleven.  9.  He  appears  the 
second  time  to  the  Eleven,  a  week  after.  10.  Soon  after 
this  He  appears  to  the  other  Mary  and  Salome,  and  perhaps 
also  to  Mary  Magdalene.  Here  the  Lord  is  seen  first  by 
Mary  Magdalene,  and  does  not  appear  to  the  other  women 
till  a  week  after. 

Ebrard.  1 .  Mary  Magdalene  visits  the  sepulchre  early, 
while  it  is  yet  dark.    She  finds  the  stone  rolled  away,  and 


DIFFERING  ARRANGEMENTS   OF   HARMONISTS.  591 

runs  to  find  Peter  and  John.  2.  Mary,  mother  of  James, 
Joanna,  Salome,  and  the  other  women  go  to  anoint  the  body, 
and  looking  into  the  tomb,  see  an  angel,  who  gives  them 
a  message.  They  depart,  but  dare  not  report  to  any  one 
what  had  occurred.  3.  Peter  and  John  come  to  the  grave 
and  return  home.  4.  Mary  Magdalene,  who  had  followed 
them,  sees  two  angels,  and  then  the  Lord.  She  returns,  and 
tells  the  disciples.  5.  The  Lord  appears  to  the  two  on  the 
way  to  Emmaus.  6.  He  appears  to  Peter.  Here  the  ap- 
pearance to  Mary  Magdalene  of  John,  and  that  to  the 
two  Marys  of  Matthew,  are  identified. 

Lange.  1 .  The  two  Marys  and  Salome  go  to  the  grave. 
Another  party — Joanna,  and  others  with  her — was  to  fol- 
low with  the  spices  and  ointments.  The  former  see  the 
stone  rolled  away,  and  Mary  Magdalene  runs  to  find  Peter 
and  John.  2.  The  other  Mary  and  Salome  approach  and 
see  one  angel  sitting  upon  the  stone,  and  afterward  another 
within  the  sepulchre,  who  gives  them  a  message,  and  they 
depart.     3.  Peter  and  John  visit  the  sepulchre,  and  return. 

4.  Mary  Magdalene  sees  two  angels,  and  then  the  Lord. 

5.  Jesus  appears  to  the  other  Mary  and  Salome,  on  their 
way  to  the  disciples.  6.  These  two  fall  in  with  Joanna  and 
her  party,  and  together  return  to  the  sepulchre  and  see 
two  angels.  1.  He  appears  to  the  two  disciples.  8.  He 
appears  to  Peter.  Here  the  Lord  appears  first  to  Mary 
Magdalene,  then  to  the  other  Mary,  and  Salome. 

Jiobinson.  1.  The  two  Marys,  Joanna  and  Salome,  and 
others,  go  to  the  sepulchre  to  embalm  the  body,  and  find 
the  stone  rolled  away.  2.  Mary  Magdalene  runs  to  find 
Peter  and  John.  3.  The  other  women  see  two  angels  in 
the  tomb,  who  give  them  a  message  to  the  disciples,  and 
they  depart.  4.  Jesus  meets  them  on  the  way,  and  renews 
the  message.  5.  Peter  and  John  come  to  the  sepulchre, 
and  return  home.  6.  Mary  Magdalene  sees  the  two  angels, 
and  then  the  Lord.      7.  Jesus  appears  to  Peter.     8.  He 


592  THE   LIFE   OF    OUR   LORD. 

appears  to  the  two  going  to  Emmaus.  Here  the  Lord  first 
appears  to  the  other  women,  and  then  to  Mary  Magda- 
lene. 

Let  us  now  attempt  to  frame  a  continuous  narrative 
from  the  accounts  of  the  several  Evangelists.  Very  early 
in  the  morning  the  women  from  Galilee,  to  the  number  of 
five  or  more,  who  had  been  present  at  the  crucifixion  and 
burial,  start  for  the  sepulchre  to  embalm  the  body.  Whether 
all  went  from  one  place,  and  at  the  same  moment,  is  uncer- 
tain ;  but  under  the  circumstances  it  is  more  probable  that 
they  came  from  different  parts  of  the  city,  and  met  by 
agreement.  Perhaps  Mary  Magdalene  alone,  or  with  the 
other  Mary  and  Salome,  may  have  a  little  preceded  the 
others.  They  knew,  for  some  at  least  were  eye-witnesses, 
that  a  great  stone  had  been  rolled  to  the  door  of  the  sepul- 
chre, and  it  was  therefore  a  question  with  them  how  they 
could  roll  it  away.  But  they  did  not  know  of  the  sealing 
of  the  stone,  and  the  setting  of  the  watch,  which  took  place 
at  the  eve  of  the  Sabbath.  As  they  approach  the  sepulchre 
they  see  that  the  stone  is  rolled  away  ;  and  Mary  Magdalene, 
who  naturally  inferred  that  the  Jews  had  removed  the  body, 
in  deep  excitement  runs  to  inform  the  two  chief  apostles, 
Peter  and  John,  of  this  fact.  The  other  women  continue 
to  approach  the  sepulchre.  That  the  angel  was  not  now 
sitting  upon  the  stone,  and  visible  to  them,  and  that  the 
guards  were  not  lying  as  dead  men  before  the  door,  seem 
most  probable,  as  otherwise  their  fears  would  have  deterred 
them  from  advancing.  Seeing  nothing,  they  enter  the  sep- 
ulchre, or  its  vestibule.  An  angel  now  appears  to  them, 
and,  after  bidding  them  not  be  afraid,  shows  them  the 
empty  niche  where  the  body  was  laid,  and  gently  reproves 
them  for  coming  to  find  the  Lord  there,  the  living  with  the 
dead.  He  proceeds  to  announce  to  them  that  He  is  risen, 
and  will  meet  the  disciples  in  Galilee,  as  He  had  said  to 
them  while  He  was  with  them  there.     Greatly  agitated  by 


PROBABLE  ORDER  OP  EVENTS,  593 

what  they  had  seen  and  heard,  fear  contending  with  joy, 
they  leave  the  sepulchre. 

Soon  after  their  departure — but  how  soon  is  uncertain, 
as  we  do  not  know  where  Mary  Magdalene  found  Peter 
and  John — the  two  apostles  come  running  with  all  speed  to 
determine  the  truth  of  her  account.  John,  who  reaches 
the  tomb  first,  only  looks  in,  but  Peter  enters,  and  is  fol- 
lowed by  John.  The  body  is  gone  ;  but,  examining  care- 
fully, they  see  the  grave  clothes  arranged  in  order,  and  the 
napkin  lying  by  itself.  John  is  convinced,  by  all  that  he 
sees,  that  the  Lord  is  indeed  risen ;  but  Peter  only  marvels. 
They  seem  to  have  departed  very  quickly  again,  perhaps 
to  inform  the  other  disciples  that  the  body  was  truly  gone ; 
or  perhaps  they  were  afraid  lest  they  should  bo  found  by 
their  enemies  at  the  tomb.  Mary  Magdalene,  who  had 
followed  them  back  to  the  sepulchre,  did  not  depart  with 
them,  but  remained  standing  without,  weeping.  It  is  plain 
from  the  whole  narrative  that  she  was  under  the  power  of 
most  intense  grief,  believing  that  the  body  of  her  Lord  had 
been  borne  away  by  His  enemies.  Whilst  weeping,  she 
stoops  down  to  look  in,  as  if  a  faint  hope  still  lingered  that 
she  should  see  Him  there.  She  sees  two  angels  sitting,  one 
at  the  head  and  one  at  the  feet,  where  the  body  had  lain. 
Unlike  the  other  women,  who  had  been  greatly  terrified  at 
the  angelic  apparition,  she  seems  scarce  to  have  notioed 
them ;  and  to  their  question, "  Woman,  why  weepest  thou  ?  " 
she  answers  in  words  showing  how  wholly  her  heart  was 
filled  with  her  one  great  sorrow.  Lifting  her  head,  for  she 
was  now  looking  into  the  tomb,  she  sees  Jesus,  but  does 
not  recognize  Him.  He  addresses  her  with  the  inquiry, 
44  Woman,  why  weepest  thou  ?  "  Supposing  Him  to  be  the 
gardener,  probably  because  it  was  natural  that  he  should 
be  there,  and  thinking  that  he  might  possibly  have  taken 
away  the  body,  she  asks  Him,  in  words  full  of  passionate 
earnestness.     The  Lord's  reply,  "Mary,"  spoken  in  His 


594  THE  LIFE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

own  familiar  voice,  recalls  her  to  herself.  She  recognizes 
Him,  and,  prostrating  herself,  would  hold  Him  by  the  feet 
to  worship  Him.  He  forbids  her  to  touch  Him,  and  gives 
her  a  message  to  His  brethren.  She  departs,  and  tells  the 
disciples,  but  they  believe  not. 

Thus  we  find  most  probable  that  there  were  two  visions 
of  angels,  the  first  to  the  women,  the  second  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalene ;  and  one  appearance  of  the  Lord,  that  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalene; all  closely  following  each  other.  As  yet,  these 
supernatural  manifestations  were  vouchsafed  only  to  the 
women.  Peter  and  John  saw  at  the  sepulchre  neither  an- 
gels nor  the  Lord.  They  found,  indeed,  the  sepulchre 
open  and  the  body  gone ;  but  the  fact  that  He  had  risen 
rested  solely  on  the  testimony  of  the  women.  It  is  not,  in 
one  point  of  view,  at  all  strange  that  all  their  words  should 
have  seemed  to  the  disciples  as  idle  tales ;  for  it  is  plain  that, 
notwithstanding  His  most  explicit  declarations  that  He 
would  rise  on  the  third  day,  none  were  expecting,  or  even 
hoping  for,  His  resurrection.  The  women  went  to  .the  grave 
to  anoint  the  body,  and  Mary  Magdalene's  grief  was  caused 
by  the  thought  that  she  could  not  show  it  the  last  sad  to- 
kens of  regard.  She  does  not  once  allude  to  His  resurrec- 
tion as  if  it  were  possible.  Perhaps  the  fact  that  He  had 
not  appeared  to  any  of  the  apostles,  had  something  to  do 
with  the  •incredulity  of  the  latter,  for  it  was  natural  to 
suppose  that  He  would  first  manifest  Himself  to  them, 
(Mark  xvi.  11.)  Accordingly,  we  find  that  it  was  the  testi- 
mony of  Peter  that  he  had  seen  Him,  that  convinced  them, 
(Luke  xxiv.  34,)  though  even  then  they  seemed  to  have 
doubts  whether  it  was  a  real  resurrection. 

Rumors  that  the  sepulchre  was  empty,  must  have  be- 
come current  among  the  disciples  early  in  the  day,  and 
probably  most  or  all  of  them,  or  at  least  of  the  apostles, 
visited  it,  though  we  have  no  record  of  their  visits. 

The  historical  accuracy  of  the  account  of  the  bribing  of 


BRIBING   OP  THE  SOLDIERS.  595 

the  soldiers  by  the  priests  and  elders,  has  been  often  ques- 
tioned,1 but  on  insufficient  grounds.  The  watch  came,  re- 
porting what  had  taken  place  at  the  sepulchre,  and  that 
Jesus  had  actually  risen.  The  priests  and  elders  may  have 
believed  this  or  may  not,  but  they  doubtless  ascertained  to 
their  own  satisfaction  that  the  body  was  actually  gone. 
What  should  they  do  ?  Arrest  and  punish  the  soldiers  ? 
But  to  what  end  ?  since  all  the  facts  of  the  affair  must  thus 
necessarily  come  to  the  ears  of  Pilate,  and  become  more 
generally  known.  As  it  could  not  be  concealed  that  the 
body  was  gone,  some  plausible  explanation  must  be  given. 
What  could  answer  the  purpose  so  well  as  to  admit  this 
fact,  and  affirm  that  the  disciples  had  done  what  they  at- 
tempted to  guard  against  when  they  set  the  watch — had 
stolen  away  the  body.  But  this  the  soldiers  would  natu- 
rally contradict,  as  exposing  them  to  military  punishment. 
They  therefore  must  be  bribed  to  admit  that  the  story  set 
afloat  by  the  priests,  was  true.  They  would  not  affirm  the 
absurdity  that  they  knew  what  the  disciples  were  doing 
•while  they  were  sleeping ;  but  merely  keep  silence  as  to 
what  they  had  actually  seen,  and  not  deny  that  they  might 
have  been  asleep,  and  that  what  the  rulers  said,  might  have 
occurred.  Of  course  this  report  would  soon  become  cur- 
rent, and  by  most  of  the  Jews  be  believed.* 

Sunday,  17th  Nisan,  9th  April,  783. 

Early  in  the  afternoon  two  of  the  disciples  leave  Luke  xxiv.  13-32. 
Jerusalem  for  Emmaus.  As  they  go,  Jesus  joins  Him-  Mark  xvi.  12. 
self  to  them,  and  converses  with  them  till  they  reach 
the  village.  At  their  urgent  request  He  sits  down  to 
eat  with  them,  and  as  He  was  breaking  the  bread, 
their  eyes,  which  were  holden  that  they  should  not 
know  Him,  were  opened,  but  He  immediately  van- 
ished out  of  their  sight.    They  return  at  once  to  Je-    Luke  xxiv.  88 

»  See  Meyer  in  loco. 

>  See  the  excellent  observations  of  Jones,  Notes,  488. 


596  THE  LIFE  OP   OUB  LOED. 

rusalem,  and  find  the  Eleven  and  others  gathered    Mark  xvi.  18,  14. 

together,  who  meet  them  with    the  announcement    Luxx  xxiv.  84,  35. 

that  the  Lord  is  indeed  risen,  and  has  appeared  to     1  Cor.  xv.  6. 

Simon.    But  the  account  of  the  two  disciples  that 

they  had  also  seen  Him  at  Emmaus,was  disbelieved. 

While  yet  speaking  together,  Jesus  Himself  stood  in    Luki  xxiv.  86-48. 

the  midst  of  them,  although  the  doors  were  shut,  and    John  xx.  19-28. 

saluted  them.     He  convinces  them  of  the  reality  of 

His  bodily  presence  by  showing  them  His  hands  and 

His  feet,  and  by  eating  before  them.     He  breathes 

upon  them,  and  gives  them  the  power  to  remit  sins, 

and  opened  their  understanding  to  understand  the 

Scriptures. 

The  name  of  one  of  the  disciples  going  to  Emmaus  was 
Cleopas,  (Luke  xxiv.  18.)  Many  identify  him  with  Cleophas, 
Clopas,  or  Alphaeus,  the  husband  of  Mary.  It  is  most  prob- 
able that  he  was  a  different  person.  The  name  of  the  other 
disciple  is  not  given.  Lightfoot  supposes  him  to  have  been 
Peter  himself;  and  it  was  early  a  very  common  opinion 
that  he  was  Luke,  and  that  the  Evangelist  through  modesty 
did  not  mention  his  own  name.  Wieseler,  (43 1 ,)  who  makes 
Cleopas  to  have  been  Alphaeus,  makes  the  other  the  apos- 
tle James,  his  son. 

Josephus  mentions  three  places  by  the  name  of  Emmaus.1 
Of  one  of  these  he  speaks  as  "  sixty  furlongs  distant  from 
Jerusalem."  This  coincides  so  exactly  with  the  statement 
of  Luke,  (v.  13,)  that  no  reasonable  doubt  can  exist  that 
both  refer  to  the  same  place.  The  name  itself  signifies 
warm  water,  and  indicates  that  there  was  a  hot  spring  in 
the  neighborhood.  The  site  of  the  old  Emmaus  has  been 
for  a  long  period  supposed  to  be  a  village  now  called 
El  Kubeibeh,  which  lies  about  seventy  furlongs,  or  nine 
miles,  north-westerly  from  Jerusalem,  and  is  reached  by  the 
road  running  near  Mizpeh.  Schwartz  (117)  finds  its  site  in 
some  ruins  about  seven  and  a  half  miles  from  Jerusalem, 

1  War,  4. 1.  8;  7.  6.  6.    Antiq.  14.  11.  2. 


THE  TWO   DISCIPLES   AT  EMMAUS.  597 

now  called  by  the  Arabs  Baburaia.  The  identification  with 
Kubeibeh,  Robinson  denies,  (ii.  255  and  iii.  147,)  and  at- 
tempts to  identify  it  with  that  Emmaus  which  lay  in  the 
plain  of  Judah,  more  than  one  hundred  and  seventy  stadia 
from  Jerusalem,  or  about  twenty-two  Roman  miles,  and  ten 
from  Lydda.  It  received  the  name  of  Nicopolis  in  the  third 
century,  and  both  names  were  in  use  for  many  centuries. 
It  is  now  known  as  Amwas. 

The  ground  upon  which  Robinson  asserts  that  this  vil- 
lage is  the  Emmaus  of  Luke,  is,  that  "  for  thirteen  centuries 
did  the  interpretation  current  in  the  whole  Church  regard 
the  Emmaus  of  the  New  Testament  as  identical  with  Nicop- 
olis." He  disposes  of  the  statement  of  Luke,  that  it  was 
"about  threescore  furlongs  from  Jerusalem,"  (v.  13,)  by 
questioning  the  correctness  of  this  reading,  several  manu- 
scripts having  one  hundred  and  sixty  furlongs.  He  ques- 
tions also  the  reading,  sixty  stadia,  in  Josephus,  several 
manuscripts  having  thirty.  The  correctness  of  the  received 
reading  in  both  cases  seems  too  well  supported  to  be  shaken. 
But  aside  from  this  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  Emmaus 
could  have  been  so  far  distant  from  Jerusalem.  According 
to  Robinson  himself,  it  now  requires  six  to  six  and  a  half 
hours  to  pass  from  the  former  to  the  latter,  and  if  the  two 
disciples  had  left  Jerusalem  at  12  a.  m.,  they  would  have 
reached  their  home  about  6  p.  m.  Allowing  that  only  a 
very  brief  interval  was  spent  in  preparation  for  the  evening 
meal,  (v.  30,)  and  that  they  returned  with  all  haste,  they 
could  not  have  reached  Jerusalem  till  near  midnight.  But 
considering  the  habits  of  the  orientals,  it  is  very  improba- 
ble that  the  disciples  were  assembled  together  at  that  hour; 
nor  is  it  likely  that  the  Lord  would  have  selected  it  to  make 
His  first  appearance  to  them.  Besides,  some  marks  of  the 
time  when  they  met  the  Eleven  are  given  us.  John  (xx.  19) 
states  that  when  Jesus  made  nis  appearance  to  them  it  was 
evening.    This  was  probably  the  first  evening,  which  began 


598  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB  LORD. 

at  3  p.  m.  and  ended  at  6,  or  at  sunsetting.  Thia  is  cod- 
firmed  by  Mark,  (xvi.  14,)  who  says  that  "He  appeared  to 
the  Eleven  as  they  sat  at  meat."  This  could  not  well  have 
been  late  in  the  evening. 

Upon  these  grounds  we  believe  that  the  Emmaus  of 
Luke  cannot  be  placed  at  a  greater  distance  than  he  has 
placed  it.  Whether  it  can  be  identified  with  Kubeibeh  or 
not,  is  unimportant.  Robinson1  says  rightly,  although  in 
opposition  to  his  present  opinion,  that  "the  distance  (of 
Nicopolis)  one  hundred  and  sixty  stadia,  or  six  hours,  is 
too  great  for  the  disciples  to  have  returned  the  same  even- 
ing.   We  must  therefore  abide  by  the  usual  reading."* 

The  time  when  the  two  disciples  left  Jerusalem  is  not 
mentioned,  but  it  was  probably  early  in  the  afternoon,  as 
the  distance  was  about  eight  miles,  and  they  seem  to  have 
reached  Emmaus  about  sundown.' 

When  the  Lord  met  the  two  He  was  not  recognized  by 
them.  Luke  says  (v.  16)  "Their  eyes  were  holden  that 
they  should  not  know  Him."  This  some  have  thought  dis- 
crepant with  Mark's  statement  (xvi.  12)  that  "He  appeared 
in  another  form — cv  €Tepa  pop^y — unto  two  of  them."  The 
latter  expression  may  refer  to  His  previous  appearance  to 
Mary  Magdalene,  by  whom  He  had  been  mistaken  for  the 
gardener  ;4  or  to  another  tbnn  than  that  before  the  resurrec- 
tion. That  His  bodily  aspect  was  in  many  points  after  the 
resurrection  unlike  what  it  had  been  before,  we  cannot 
doubt,  though  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  tell  wherein  those 
distinctions  consisted.  (See  John  xxi.  4.)  Still  the  language 
of  Luke  implies  that  there  was  no  such  distinction  as  to 
hinder  His  recognition ;  and  that,  in  this  case,  except  the 

1  Iu  Bib.  Sacra,  1845,  p.  181.  »  See  Winer,  i.  325  ;  Raumer,  169. 

3  See  v.  29  :  "  For  it  is  toward  evening,  and  the  day  is  far  spent ; "  and 
it  was  about  the  time  of  the  evening  meal.  "  They  arrived  at  Emmaus  about 
3  p.  m.,"  (Lardner ;)  between  3  and  4  p.  m.,  (Jones.)    But  this  is  too  early. 

4  So  Lardner. 


APPEARANCE  OF  THE  LORD  TO  PETER.       599 

eyes  of  the  disciples  had  been  specially  holden,  they  would 
have  known  Him.  "  And  their  eyes  were  opened  and  they 
knew  Him,"  (v.  31.) 

It  was  probably  early  in  the  evening  that  the  two 
reached  Jerusalem  on  their  return,  joy  at  again  beholding 
their  Lord  adding  wings  to  their  feet.  They  find  the  eleven 
apostles  gathered  together,  and  others  with  them,  but  the 
doors  were  closed  for  fear  of  the  Jews.  As  they  enter  they 
are  greeted  by  the  cry, "  The  Lord  is  risen  indeed,  and  hath 
appeared  unto  Simon." l  They  proceed  to  tell  that  He  has 
also  appeared  to  them,  but  their  words  are  not  believed, 
(Mark  xvi.  13.)  Why  was  this?  If  the  disciples  believed 
Peter's  word,  that  He  had  appeared  to  him,  and  thus  the 
fact  of  His  resurrection  was  established,  how  easy  to  be- 
lieve the  report  of  the  two  that  they  also  had  seen  Him. 
Upon  this  ground,  and  because  Luke  does  not  mention  the 
fact  that  the  Eleven  disbelieved,  it  is  said  that  the  two 
Evangelists  are  at  variance.*  But  the  silence  of  Luke  does 
not  disprove  Mark's  statement.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  un- 
derstand why,  after  having  given  credit  to  Peter,  they  should 
deny  it  to  the  two  disciples.  It  was  in  the  supposed  in- 
compatibility of  their  respective  statements.  The  two  report- 
ed that  He  had  been  with  them  on  their  journey  and  at 
Emmaus ;  yet  He  had  also  been  seen  by  Peter  at  Jerusalem. 
If  we  now  suppose  that  immediately  after  He  vanished  from 
their  sight  He  appeared  to  the  apostle,  into  what  perplex- 
ity would  all  be  cast !  Ignorant  of  the  properties  of  His 
resurrection  body,  and  its  power  of  sudden  transition  from 
place  to  place,  they  would  either  deny  the  reality  of  the 
resurrection,  and  say  that  they  had  seen  a  spirit  or  ghost ; 
or  deny  their  testimony,  and  the  fact  that  they  had  seen  Him 
at  all.    Probably  the  former  opinion  was  the  more  general 

1  Some  would  make  this  an  interrogation :  "  Has  the  Lord  risen,  and  has 
He  appeared  to  Simon  ? "    So  Townsend ;   but  there  is  no  ground  for  this. 
»  So  Meyer,  Alford. 


600  THE  LITE   OF   OUR  LORD. 

one ;  for  when  the  Lord  immediately  afterward  stood  in  the 
midst  of  them,  "  They  were  terrified,  and  thought  that  they 
had  seen  a  spirit." 

Under  what  circumstances  the  Lord  appeared  to  Peter 
we  are  not  informed :  it  is  probable  that  it  was  the  same 
appearance  to  which  Paul  alludes,  (1  Cor.  xv.  5.)  The  cir- 
cumstance mentioned  by  John,  (xx.  19,)  that  the  doors 
were  shut  when  Jesus  appeared  to  the  disciples,  seems  de- 
signed to  show  that  He  had  now  entered  a  new  stage  of 
being ;  and  that  that,  which  was  a  barrier  against  the  intru- 
sion of  the  Jews,  was  no  barrier  against  Him.  How  He 
entered  we  cannot  say.  The  doors  were  shut — they  were 
not  seen  or  heard  to  open,  yet  He  stood  among  them.  As 
He  had  suddenly  vanished  from  the  two  at  Eminaus,  so  did 
He  now  suddenly  appear  to  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem.  And 
these  sudden  appearances  and  disappearances  seem  to  have 
marked  all  His  interviews  with  His  disciples  during  the 
forty  days.  The  first  work  of  the  Lord,  after  He  saw  the 
terror  of  the  Eleven  and  their  superstitious  fears,  was  to 
convince  them  of  His  true  bodily  presence.  He  shows  them 
His  hands  and  His  feet,  in  which  they  might  see  the  prints 
of  the  nails,  and  even  proceeds  to  eat  before  them.  He 
afterward,  when  their  minds  were  tranquillized,  and  they 
were  fully  convinced  that  He  was  indeed  with  them,  breathes 
on  them,  and  gives  to  them  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  power  to 
remit  and  retain  sins.  Into  the  special  significance  of  this 
gift,  or  its  relations  to  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost, 
our  purpose  does  not  lead  us  to  enter.  He  also  opened  their 
understanding  that  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures. 

Some  would  refer  the  statement  of  Mark  (xvi.  14)  not 
to  His  first,  but  to  His  second  appearance  to  the  Eleven.  It 
is  said  that  neither  Luke  nor  John  in  their  accounts  of  the 
first  interview  intimates  that  He  upbraided  their  unbelief. 
It  was  their  continued  incredulity  that  brought  down  upon 
them  His  reproof.     But  it  does  not  appear  that  any  of  the 


SECOND  APPEARANCE  TO  THE  ELEVEN.       601 

apostles  except  Thomas,  who  was  not  present  at  His  first 
appearance,  did  disbelieve  after  they  had  actually  seen 
Him ;  and  He  may  have  used  language  of  reproof,  although 
it  is  not  specially  reported  by  Luke  or  John.  Indeed,  His 
words  and  acts  during  that  interview  necessarily  imply  re- 
proof. ■ 

Sunday,  24th  Nisan,  16th  April,  783. 

After  eight  days  Jesus  again  appeared  to  the  assem-  John  xx.  26-29. 
bled  apostles,  Thomas,  who  had  been  before  absent,  now 
being  with  them.  By  showing  him  the  prints  of  the  John  xx.  24,  25. 
nails  and  the  spear,  as  he  had  demanded,  and  desiring 
him  to  touch  them,  the  Lord  convinces  him  of  the 
reality  of  His  resurrection ;  and  Thomas  acknowledges 
Him  as  his  Lord  and  his  Ood. 

The  place  where  the  apostles  were  assembled,  was  in  all 
probability  the  same  in  which  Jesus  had  before  met  them, 
and  may  have  been  the  upper  room  in  which  the  paschal 
supper  was  eaten,  and  to  which  they  returned  from  the 
Mount  of  Olives.  Why  they  continued  so  long  in  Jerusa- 
lem, when  the  Lord  had  bidden  them  go  to  Galilee,  is  not 
stated  ;  and  some  have  inferred  that  they  waited  for  the  expi- 
ration of  the  feast,  which  lasted  seven  days.  "  The  Lord's 
command,"  says  Stier,  "presupposed  their  tarrying  through 
the  eight  days,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  feast."  Lightfoot 
affirms  that,  on  the  first  day,  no  one  should  exceed  the  limits 
of  a  sabbath-day's  journey ;  on  the  second,  no  one  might  go 
home,  because  of  the  "  appearance  before  the  Lord"  which 
then  took  place ;  on  the  third,  one  might  go  if  necessary, 
though  it  was  better  to  stay  through  the  whole  feast.  But  the 
feast  had  been  some  days  ended,  yet  they  remain.   Luthardt 

1  Clericus  refers  to  this  occasion  all  of  Mark  xvi.  14-18 ;  Luke  xx'w.  86- 
49.    Bncher  would  place  this  meeting  after  the  return  from  Galilee,  and  just 
before  the  ascension  :  Mark  xvi.  14-19 ;  Luke  xxiv.  44-58 ;  Acts  i.  4-18. 
26 


602  THE  LIFE  OF  OUR  LORD. 

(in  loco)  supposes  that  they  may  have  assembled  to  keep  the 
day  in  commemoration  of  His  resurrection,  and  with  the 
hope  that  He  would  appear  to  them  again.  It  seems,  how- 
ever, more  probable  that  it  was  the  unbelief  of  the  apostles 
which  kept  them  at  Jerusalem.  Just  before  His  arrest,  and 
while  on  His  way  from  the  Passover  supper  to  the  garden, 
Jesus  had  said  to  them  that  "  After  He  was  risen  He  would 
go  before  them  into  Galilee,"  (Matt.  xxvi.  32  ;  Mark  xiv. 
28.)  Probably  also  at  the  same  time  He  specified  the  place 
where  He  would  meet  with  them  there,  (Matt,  xxviii.  10 
and  16.)  This  direction,  in  the  first  moments  of  their  grief, 
they  seem  utterly  to  have  forgotten ;  and  the  Lord,  first  by 
the  angels,  and  then  from  His  own  mouth,  reminded  them 
of  it,  and  incited  them  to  obedience.  Had  their  faith  been 
strong,  they  would  have  gone  at  once  to  Galilee,  and  waited 
for  Him  there.  This  they  did  not  do.  Even  after  He  had 
by  the  most  convincing  proofs  established  the  fact  of  His 
resurrection  to  others  of  the  Eleven,  still  Thomas  disbe- 
lieved ;  and  perhaps  many  among  the  disciples.  Whilst  this 
fact  was  in  dispute  they  could  not  go  into  Galilee,  for  this 
implied  that  they  no  longer  had  any  doubts  that  He  was 
risen  and  would  meet  them  there.  It  thus  became  neces- 
sary that  He  should  manifest  Himself  to  them  again  and 
again,  and  tarry  for  them  at  Jerusalem  till  the  unbelief  of 
all  was  overcome.  And  yet  it  is  said  that  some  which  had 
gathered  at  the  mountain  in  Galilee,  doubted,  (Matt,  xxviil 
17.)  It  is  most  probable,  however,  that  these  were  not  of 
those  who  had  seen  Him  in  Judea. 

Why  Thomas  was  not  present  at  the  first  meeting  of 
the  apostles  is  not  stated,  and  we  can  but  conjecture.  It 
can  scarcely,  however,  have  been  accidental.  That  the  Lord 
should  appear  the  second  time  to  the  Eleven  on  the  eighth 
day  after  His  resurrection,  is  of  deep  significance. 


APPEARANCE  AT  THE  SEA   OF  TTBEEIAS.  603 


April— May,  783.    a.  d.  30. 

The  apostles  having  returned  to  Galilee,  the  Lord 
appears  to  seven  of  them  whilst  engaged  in  fishing  John  xxi.  1-23. 
upon  the  lake.  The  miracle  of  the  great  draught 
of  fishes  is  repeated,  and  He  feeds  the  seven  with  fish 
and  bread.  After  they  had  dined,  He  commands 
Peter  three  times  to  feed  His  sheep,  and  signifies  his 
future  death  and  the  protracted  life  of  John. 

After  this  He  appears  upon  a  mountain  to  a  great    Matt,  xxviii.  16-20. 
body  of  disciples,  and  commands  that  the  Gospel  be     1  Cor.  xv.  6. 
preached  and  disciples  baptized  throughout  the  world.     Mark  xvi.  15-18. 

That  the  appearance  of  the  Lord  at  the  lake  of  Galilee 
was  before  His  appearance  upon  the  mountain,  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  fact  that  "  This  was  now  the  third  time  that 
He  showed  Himself  to  His  disciples  after  that  He  was  risen 
from  the  dead,"  (John  xxi  14.)  This  order  is  followed  by- 
most.1  In  this  threefold  enumeration  the  Evangelist  plainly 
refers  to  the  apostles  as  constituting  the  most  important 
part  of  the  disciples,  although  not  perhaps  to  them  exclusive- 
ly. Thus  the  first  appearance  was  to  the  "  Eleven  gathered 
together  and  them  that  were  with  them,"  (Luke  xxiv.  33.) 
Mark  (xvi.  14)  says  "  The  Eleven."  John  speaks  simply  of 
"The  disciples,"  (xx.  19.)  At  this  time  Thomas  was  absent. 
The  second  was  to  the  disciples,  including  Thomas,  (John  xx. 
26.)  The  third  "  To  the  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias."  Of 
these,  five  at  least  were  apostles ;  the  names  of  the  remain- 
ing two  are  not  given,  and  it  is  not  certain,  though  prob- 
able, that  they  also  were  of  the  apostles.  Lightfoot  sup- 
poses them  to  have  been  Philip  and  Andrew.  Meyer  (in 
loco)  thinks  it  impossible  that  these  three  appearances  can 
be  made  to  harmonize  with  the  statements  of  Paul,  (1  Cor. 
xv.  5.)     But  this  depends  upon  the  point  whether  Paul  is 

1  So  Lightfoot,  Robinson,  Lichtenstein,  Ebrard,  KratTt,  Ncwcome. 


604  THE  LIFE  OP  OUB  LOED. 

designing  to  a  give  a  chronological  outline  of  all  the  ap- 
pearances. This  is  generally  and  with  good  reason  denied.1 
Luthardt  supposes  that  Paul,  in  the  words  "  Then  of  the 
Twelve,"  (v.  5,)  may  embrace  all  the  three  appearances  to 
them,  and  thus  his  order  be  made  chronological. 

Perhaps  at  this  time  the  Lord  gave  them  more  specific 
directions  respecting  the  meeting  upon  the  mount.  If  we 
identify  this  meeting  upon  the  mount  with  that  when  the 
500  brethren  were  present,  as  most  do,  such  a  number  of 
disciples  could  not  have  been  gathered  unless  the  notice 
had  been  early  given,  and  widely  spread.  Both  the  time 
and  place  must  have  been  definitely  known. 

The  name  of  the  mountain  where  the  disciples  met  the 
Lord  according  to  His  appointment  is  not  given.  Many 
suppose  it  to  be  the  same  where  He  delivered  the  sermon, 
(Matt.  v.  1.)  Others  identify  it  with  the  Mount  of  Trans- 
figuration; others  still  with  Tabor.  It  was  a  tradition 
current  during  the  middle  ages  that  it  was  the  northern 
peak  of  the  Mount  of  Olives.  Saewulf  speaks  of  a  chapel 
called  Galilee  of  Mount  Sion,  where  the  Lord  first  appeared 
to  His  apostles  after  His  resurrection,  according  to  His 
words,  "  After  I  am  risen  again  I  will  go  before  you  into 
Galilee."  "  That  place  was  called  Galilee,  because  the  apos- 
tles, who  were  called  Galileans,  frequently  rested  there."  " 
This  tradition  has  recently  been  defended  by  Hofmann,4 
but  is  wholly  untenable.6 

This  meeting,  having  been  appointed  by  the  Lord  before 
His  death,  and  recalled  to  the  memory  of  the  disciples  by 
the  angels,  must  be  looked  upon  as  the  chiefest  and  most 
significant  of  all  His  manifestations.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  it  was  identical  with  that  mentioned  by  Paul, 
(1  Cor.  xv.  6:)  "After  that  He  was  seen  of  above  five 

1  Lichtenstein,  476  ;  Hodge  in  loco ;  Wieseler,  432. 

s  A.  D.  1102.    Early  Travels,  42. 

«  See  also  Maundeviile,  Early  Travels,  177.  «  Leben  Jesu,  395. 

•  See  Meyer  on  Matt,  xxviii.  16 ;  Ewald,  Jahrbuch,  1866,  p.  196. 


APPEARANCE  UPON  THE  MOUNT  IN  GALILEE.  605 

hundred  brethren  at  once."  Although  Matthew  speaks 
only  of  the  eleven  disciples  as  present  at  the  mountain,  yet 
his  silence  respecting  others  would  not  exclude  them,  as  in 
his  introduction  to  the  sermon  on  the  mount,  he  speaks 
only  of  the  disciples  as  His  auditors,  although  great  multi- 
tudes beside  were  present.  That  he  should  mention  only 
the  Eleven,  is  wholly  consistent  with  his  general  purpose, 
and  with  the  peculiarities  of  his  Gospel.  But  in  his  own 
brief  account  there  is  a  hint  that  others  were  there  beside 
the  Eleven.  He  says,  "  And  when  they  saw  Him  they  wor- 
shipped Him  ;  but  some  doubted."  Who  were  these  that 
doubted  ?  Meyer  insists  that  it  could  only  have  been  some 
of  the  Eleven.  But  when  we  recollect  His  prior  appear- 
ances to  them  ;  how  that  none  of  them  after  the  first  inter- 
view, except  Thomas,  seem  to  have  had  any  doubts  as  to  the 
reality  of  His  resurrection ;  how  the  unbelief  of  Thomas 
was  wholly  overcome  at  the  second  interview ;  how  He  had 
given  to  them  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit ;  and  that  they 
had  now  gathered  expressly  to  meet  Him — we  find  it  very 
difficult  to  believe  that  any  of  these  doubters  were  apostles. 
If  not,  then  others  must  have  been  present ;  and  as  most 
of  these  had  not  seen  Him  since  His  resurrection,  it  will 
not  appear  surprising  if  some  among  them  should  doubt.1 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  angel,  speaking  to  the 
women,  does  not  confine  his  direction  to  go  into  Galilee  to 
the  apostles,  but  makes  it  general,  embracing  all  the  dis- 
ciples, and  perhaps  also  the  women. 

Some,  however,  though  admitting  that  others  were  pres- 
ent with  the  apostles,  make  some  of  the  latter  to  have 
doubted.  If  so,  of  what  did  they  doubt  ?  Whether  they 
should  offer  to  Him  worship  ?  *  It  is  not  indeed  anywhere 
said  that  He  had  before  been  worshipped  by  them;  and 
now  something  new   and  divine  in  His  aspect  may  have 

i  So  Lightfoot,  Norton,  Robinson,  Ebrard,  Stier,  Alford. 
•  So  Wetstein,  quoted  in  Meyer ;  De  Wette,  Lange. 


606  THE  LIFE   OP    OUR   LORD. 

impelled  them  to  the  act.  (See  Matt,  xxviii.  9.)  But  their 
doubts  could  scarce  refer  to  this.  Did  they  doubt  of  His 
personal  identity  ?  Some  have  thought  that  He  was  so  far 
from  them  that  all  could  not  at  first  distinctly  see  Him ; 
others  refer  their  doubts  to  the  changed  appearance  of  His 
body,  either  as  already  glorified,  or  as  in  an  intermediate 
condition,  midway  between  the  earthly  and  heavenly.  Some, 
as  Newcome,  would  translate  it  "  had  doubted,"  and  refer 
it  to  the  earlier  doubts  of  the  apostles.  "  Some  had  doubt- 
ed before ;  but  all  were  now  convinced."  But  if  this  was 
the  interview  when  the  500  were  present,  many  of  whom 
must  have  been  from  Galilee,  and  had  not  seen  Him  since 
His  resurrection,  this  fact  best  explains  the  circumstance 
that  some  doubted  even  now. 

Upon  this  occasion,  the  words  seem  to  have  been  spoken 
which  are  recorded  by  Matthew  xxviii.  18-20,  and  Mark 
xvi.  15-18.'  Some,  however,  suppose  His  words  in  Mark 
to  have  been  spoken  to  the  Eleven,  as  they  sat  at  meat,  on 
the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection."  Alford  would 
refer  v.  15  to  this  occasion,  but  doubts  respecting  vs.  16-18. 
Townson  makes  all  to  have  been  spoken  in  Jerusalem,  after 
the  return  from  Galilee.  He  would  place  here  also  His 
words,  Luke  xxiv.  44-48.'  Ebrard  considers  all  that  Luke 
records  from  v.  44  on,  a  resume  of  all  that  Jesus  had  spoken 
after  His  resurrection,  in  His  various  interviews  with  His 
disciples.  We  shall  consider  the  point  more  fully  in  con- 
nection with  the  ascension. 

Thursday,  May  18th,  783.     a.d.  30. 

A  few  days  after  the  meeting  upon  the  mountain 

in  Galilee,  the  apostles  return  to  Jerusalem,  accom-  Luut  xxiv.  49. 

panied  by  Jesus'  mother  and  brethren.     Upon  the  Acts  i.  1-3. 

fortieth  day  after  His  resurrection,  Jesus  gathers  the  Acts  i.  4-8. 

i  So  Lichtenstein,  Tischendorf,  Krafi%  Ebrard. 

•  So  Newcome,  Robinson.  *  So  Wieseler,  Bengel,  Tischendorf. 


GATHERING   OF  DISCIPLES   AT  JERUSALEM.  607 

Eleven  at  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and,  leading  them    Luke  xxiv.  50,  51. 

toward  Bethany,  ascends  to  heaven.    Whilst  they    Mark  xvi.  19. 

were  gazing  after  Him,  two  angels  appear  to  them,    Acts  i.  9-12. 

and  remind  them  that  He  is  to  return.     The  apos-    Luke  xxiv.  52,  53. 

ties  go  back  to  Jerusalem,  and  there  wait  for  the 

promised  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     After  Pente-    Mark  xvi.  20. 

cost  they  begin  their  labors. 

• 

That  Luke,  in  his  statement  (Acts  L  3)  that  Jesus 
"  Showed  Himself  alive  after  His  passion  by  many  infallible 
proofs,  being  seen  of  the  apostles  forty  days,  and  speaking 
of  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God,"  includes 
more  interviews  than  are  specifically  recorded  by  any  of 
the  Evangelists,  cannot  well  be  doubted.  But  whether 
these  interviews  occurred  in  Galilee,  before  the  apostles 
went  up  to  Jerusalem,  or  in  Jerusalem,  or  in  both,  can  only 
be  conjectured.  In  favor  of  Galilee  it  may  be  said,  that 
here  the  apostles  were  at  home  and  among  friends,  and 
that  amidst  the  scenes  of  His  former  teachings  His  present 
words  would  come  with  double  power  and  meaning ;  whilst 
in  Jerusalem  they  would  be  among  His  enemies,  and  in  a 
state  of  disquietude,  if  not  of  positive  fear.  We  may,  then, 
suppose  that  it  was  near  the  fortieth  day  ere  they  went  up  to 
Jerusalem.  That  they  went  in  obedience  to  some  special 
direction,  is  probable,  and  not  simply  to  be  present  at  the 
feast  of  Pentecost ;  but  that  they  knew  for  what  end  He 
had  gathered  them  there,  may  be  doubted.  Indeed  it  may 
be  fairly  inferred  from  Acts  i.  6,  that  so  far  from  supposing 
that  He  was  then  about  to  depart  from  them  into  heaven, 
they  rather  hoped  and  expected  that  He  was  about  to  re- 
veal Himself  in  glory,  and  to  commence  His  reign  with  the 
luptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  conformably  to  His  promise, 
(v.  5.)  Olshausen  would  refer  v.  4  to  one  assembling  of 
the  disciples,  and  v.  6  to  another  and  later,  but  his  reasons 
are  not  strong. 

The  exact  spot  of  the  ascension  upon  the  Mount  of 


608  THE  LITE  OP   OUR  LORD. 

Olives  has  been  preserved  by  tradition ;  and  a  chapel  now 
stands  upon  it,  of  modern  erection,  and  in  the  hands  of  the 
Mohammedans.  But  it  is  certain  that  Helena,  mother  of 
Constantine,  erected  a  church  upon  the  summit,  and  prob- 
ably near  the  present  site ;  though  Stanley  (448)  claims  that 
she  did  not  mean  to  honor  the  scene  of  the  ascension 
itself,  but  a  cave,  in  which,  according  to  Eusebius,  Jesus 
initiated  His  disciples  into  His  secret  mysteries.  "  There  is, 
in  fact,  no  proof  from  Eusebius  that  any  tradition  pointed 
out  the  scene  of  the  ascension."  '  As  to  the  rock  within 
the  present  chapel,  which  has  been  pointed  out  to  pilgrims 
since  the  seventh  century  as  bearing  the  imprint  of  the 
Lord's  footsteps,  he  says,  "  There  is  nothing  but  a  simple 
cavity  in  the  rock,  with  no  more  resemblance  to  a  human 
foot  than  to  any  thing  else." 

As  Luke  alone  of  the  Evangelists  mentions  the  place 
of  the  ascension,  we  must  turn  to  his  statements.  He  says 
in  his  Gospel,  (xxiv.  50 :)  "  And  He  led  them  out'as  far  as 
to  Bethany,"  €<o?  «?  B^aviav ;  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
(i.  12:)  "Then  returned  they  unto  Jerusalem  from  the 
mount  called  Olivet,  which  is  from  Jerusalem  a  sabbath- 
day's  journey."  There  is  thus  the  topographical  objection 
to  the  traditional  site  of  the  ascension,  that  it  is  but  about 
half  a  mile  from  the  city  wall ;  and  if  Jesus  was  separated 
from  the  disciples  here,  He  did  not  lead  them  out  as  far  as 
to  Bethany.  There  is  also  another  objection,  in  the  feet  of  its 
publicity,  being  in  full  view  from  the  city.  But  if  we  con- 
strue the  statement,  "as  far  as  to  Bethany,"  to  mean  the 
village  of  Bethany,  we  on  the  other  hand  make  Luke  in- 
consistent with  himself,  since  this  is  a  mile  below  the  sum- 
mit of  Olivet,  and  much  more  than  a  sabbath-day's  jour- 
ney. 

Several  solutions  of  the  difficulty  have  been  proposed. 
Lightfoot  would  distinguish  between  Bethany,  a  tract  of 

1  See,  however,  Porter,  i.  177. 


PLACE  OP  THE   ASCENSION.  609 

the  mount,  and  the  town  Bethany.  The  former  was  dis- 
tant from  the  city  but  seven  furlongs,  or  one  mile ;  the  lat- 
ter, fifteen  furlongs,  or  two  miles.  Between  the  two  lay 
Bethphage,  and  He  ascended  "  in  that  very  place  where  He 
got  upon  the  ass  when  He  rode  into  Jerusalem."  Wieseler 
(435,  note)  supposes  that  Bethphage  was  regarded  by  the 
Jews  as  if  it  constituted  a  part  of  the  city,  and  that,  reck- 
oning from  it  eastward,  Bethany  was  but  a  sabbath-day's 
journey.  He  refers  to  John  xii.  9-11,  that  the  Jews  did 
go  as  far  as  Bethany  upon  the  Sabbath.  Robinson  !  affirms 
that  Bethany  and  the  Mount  of  Olives  are  used  by  Luke 
"  interchangeably,  and  almost  as  synonymous."  With  him 
many  agree.  "As  far  as  to  Bethany,  not  quite  to  the 
village  itself,  but  over  the  brow  of  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
where  it  descends  on  Bethany."  ( Alford.)  "  Not  altogether 
into  Bethany,  but  so  far  as  the  point  where  Bethany  came 
into  sight."  (Stier.)  "  The  secluded  hills  which  overhang 
that  village  on  the  eastern  slope  of  Olivet."  (Stanley.) 
That  the  "  Mount  of  Olives  "  is  a  general  designation,  em- 
bracing the  eastern  as  well  as  the  western  slopes,  and  the 
villages  upon  them,  is  apparent  from  various  passages  in 
the  Evangelists.  (Compare  Mark  xi.  1 ;  Luke  xix.  29 ; 
Mark  xi.  11, 12  ;  Luke  xxi.  37.)  We  have,  then,  to  seek  a 
site  somewhere  upon  the  mount,  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Bethany,  and  distant  about  a  sabbath-day's  journey  from 
Jerusalem.*  Such  a  site  Barclay  thinks  he  finds  in  a  hill 
which  overhangs  Bethany,  that  lies  about  five  hundred 
yards  below.    This  hill  is  a  mile  from  St.  Stephen's  gate, 

*  Har.  234. 

*  Meyer  would  make,  not  the  place  of  the  ascension,  bat  the  mountain,  to 
be  so  far  distant  Bat  the  mountaiu,  at  its  base  and  lower  slopes,  is  within 
a  few  rods  of  the  city.  "  The  mean  distance,"  says  Barclay,  (59,)  "  of  that 
portion  of  its  summit  opposite  the  city,  is  about  half  a  mile.  But  by  the 
nearest  pathway  it  is  918  yards  from  St.  Stephen's  gate  to  the  Church  of  the 
Ascension ;  by  the  longer  footpath,  1810  yards ;  and  by  the  main  camel  road, 
is  perhaps  a  little  farther." 

26* 


61Q  THE  LIFE   OF   OUE  LORD. 

and  within  a  hundred  yards  of  the  direct  footpath  from 
Bethany  to  Jerusalem.  However  it  may  be  with  this  par- 
ticular spot,  there  is  little  doubt* that  from  some  one  of  the 
heights  a  little  below  the  summit  of  Olivet,  that  look  to 
the  east,  and  overhang  the  village  of  Bethany,  He  ascended 
to  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  His  Father.1 

In  regard  to  the  hour  of  the  day  when  the  ascension 
took  place,  nothing  definite  can  be  said.  By  some  it  is 
supposed  to  have  been  early  morning,  by  others  midday. 
That  others  were  present  beside  the  Eleven,  is  probable, 
though  not  expressly  said. 

The  difficulties  connected  with  the  statements  of  the 
Evangelists  respecting  the  ascension  demand  that  we  ex- 
amine their  respective  narratives  in  some  detail.  Matthew 
does  not  say  that  Jesus  ascended  into  heaven  after  His  res- 
urrection, but  closes  his  Gospel  with  the  departure  of  the 
Eleven  from  Jerusalem  to  Galilee,  where  Jesus  met  them 
at  the  mountain,  as  He  had  appointed  them.  There,  as  it 
would  seem,  He  gave  them  the  commission  to  go  and  teach 
all  nations,  promising  to  be  with  them  to  the  end  of 
the  world.*  That  these  words  were  spoken  at  this  in- 
terview in  Galilee  is  intrinsically  probable ;  and  there  is 
an  especial  fitness  in  it  if  we  suppose  that,  not  only  the 
Eleven,  but  the  great  body  of  the  disciples  were  present. 
But  the  assertion  that  this  was  the  final  interview,  and  these 
the  last  words  of  Jesus  to  His  apostles,  and  therefore  that 
the  ascension  was  from  Galilee,  is  without  proof.  Here,  as 
often,  the  brevity  of  our  Evangelist  must  be  complemented 
by  the  fuller  narratives  of  the  others.  Had  we  the  account 
of  Matthew  only,  we  could  not  know  that  Jesus  ascended 

1  In  favor  of  the  traditional  site,  see  Williams,  ii.  440;  Ellicott,  418. 
Jones,  (Notes,  451,)  who  supposes  several  ascensions,  makes  the  first  to  have 
taken  place  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  (Luke  xxir.  50, 
51,)  and  to  have  been  at  Bethany,  nearly  two  miles  from  Jerusalem;  and  the 
last,  (Acts  i.  12,)  from  Olivet,  about  five  furlongs  distant 

1  Teschendorf,  Lichtenstein,  Robiuson. 


OP  THE  ASCENSION.  611 

from  the  mountain  in  Galilee,  since  he  does  not  mention  the 
ascension  at  all.  But  as  he  was  not  ignorant  of  the  fact,  so 
he  could  not  have  been  of  the  time  and  place. 

The  narrative  of  Mark  (xvi.  14-20)  presents  greater 
difficulties.  He  records  the  command  of  the  Lord  to  go 
into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel,  and  the  promise 
that  certain  signs  should  follow  them  that  believe.  From 
the  connection  in  which  His  words  stand  it  would  seem 
that  they  were  spoken  to  the  Eleven  as  they  sat  at  meat 
on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  and  that  im- 
mediately after  He  ascended  into  heaven.  This,  however, 
is  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  statements  of  Luke  ;  and 
it  is  also  intrinsically  improbable  that  upon  the  occasion  of 
His  first  meeting  with  the  apostles  after  He  had  risen,  and 
while  their  minds  were  in  so  great  excitement,  He  should 
give  them  this  commission.  We  give  some  of  the  solutions 
that  have  been  proposed :  1st.  That  which  takes  Mark's 
narrative  as  strictly  chronological,  and  makes  the  Lord's 
words  to  have  been  spoken  to  the  Eleven,  on  the  evening 
of  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  and  His  ascension  to  have 
immediately  followed.  This  is  affirmed  by  those  who,  as 
Einkel  and  Jones,  maintain  that  He  repeatedly  ascended  to 
heaven ;  and,  indeed,  that  He  departed  thither  after  each 
appearance  to  His  disciples.  The  ascension  on  the  fortieth 
day  (Acts  i.  9)  was  the  last,  and  as  such  visible,  and 
marked  with  especial  solemnity.'  This  view  of  several  as- 
censions may  remove  some  difficulties,  but  involves  others 
greater,  both  historical  and  dogmatic  Others  affirm,  as 
Meyer  and  Alford,  that  Mark,  intending  to  relate  what  took 
place  at  one  and  the  same  time,  brings  together  here  by 
mistake  what  really  took  place  on  several  distinct  occasions. 
He  supposed  that  the  Lord  spake  these  words  to  the  Eleven 

>  See  Kinkel,  Studien  u.  Krit.,  1841,  translated  in  Bib.  Sacra,  Feb.  1844. 
Jones,  (Notes,  480 :)  "  He  was  during  the  forty  days  ordinarily  an  inhabitant 
of  the  heavenly  world."    See,  contra,  Robinson,  in  Bib.  Sacra,  May,  1845. 


612  THE  LIFE   OF   OUB   LORD. 

on  the  evening  of  the  day  He  rose,  and  the  same  evening 
ascended  to  heaven.  The  same  rule  of  interpretation  seems 
also  to  show  that  He  was  received  up  from  the  room  in 
which  they  were  eating,  and  that  the  Eleven,  going  imme- 
diately forth  from  this  room,  began  at  once  to  preach  the 
Gospel.  Of  course  the  writer,  whether  Mark  or  some  one 
else,  could  have  known  nothing  of  the  several  appearances 
of  Jesus  during  the  forty  days,  of  the  ascension  from  Beth- 
any, or  of  the  ten  days'  waiting  for  the  Spirit  ere  the  dis- 
ciples began  to  preach.  The  supposition  of  such  ignorance 
itself  presents  a  greater  difficulty  than  that  it  is  intended 
to  remove. 

2d.  That  which  makes  Jesus  to  have  spoken  these  words 
to  the  Eleven  on  the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection, 
but  defers  the  ascension  itself  to  the  fortieth  day  following. 
In  this  case  the  phrase  /xera  to  AoAt^tcu,  "  After  the  Lord 
had  spoken  to  them,"  (v.  19,)  is  not  to  be  confined  to  the 
few  words  just  recorded,  but  embraces  His  discourses  in 
general,  down  to  the  time  He  ascended. 

3d.  That  which  places  His  interview  with  the  Eleven  on 
the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  (v.  14,)  but  the 
words  following  upon  some  subsequent  occasion,  perhaps 
upon  the  mount  in  Galilee ;  and  the  ascension  at  a  still  later 
period. 

4th.  That  which  makes  this  interview  with  the  Eleven 
to  have  been  after  the  return  of  Jesus  and  the  disciples 
from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  and  immediately  before  the  as- 
cension at  Bethany. 

The  obvious  and  natural  interpretation  of  the  narrative 
is  this :  The  Evangelist,  wishing  to  give  in  the  briefest  way 
the  substance  of  the  Lord's  missionary  commission  to  the 
Church,  with  its  accompanying  promises,  connects  it  with  a 
meeting  of  the  eleven  apostles,  which  may  have  been  on 
the  evening  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  or  more  probably 
at  some  subsequent  period.      All  the  instructions  of  the 


ASCENDS  BUT  ONCE.  613 

forty  days  upon  this  point,  are  summed  up  in  these  few 
words.  In  the  same  concise  way  it  is  said,  that  after  the 
Lord  had  spoken  to  them,  or  after  He  had  finished  His 
instructions,  He  was  received  up.  To  press  this  brevity  as 
indicating  ignorance  on  his  part  of  the  real  order  of  events, 
is  hypercritical. 

Substantially  the  same  difficulties  meet  us  in  the  narra- 
tive of  Luke  as  in  that  of  Mark.  In  his  Gospel,  (xxiv.  33-61,) 
he  seems  to  represent  the  ascension  as  taking  place  the 
evening  after  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead.  He  meets  the 
Eleven  and  others  as  they  were  gathered  together,  and 
after  convincing  them  that  He  was  really  risen,  by  eating 
before  them,  and  discoursing  to  them,  He  leads  them  out 
to  Bethany,  and,  blessing  them,  is  carried  up  into  heaven. 
In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  however,  the  Evangelist  states 
explicitly  that  He  was  seen  of  them  forty  days,  and  full  de- 
tails respecting  His  ascension  at  the  end  of  this  period,  are 
given.  Do  these  two  accounts  conflict  with  .each  other  ? 
This  is  affirmed  by  Meyer.  According  to  him,  there  were 
two  traditions,  one  of  which  represented  the  Lord  as  as- 
cending upon  the  day  of  the  resurrection ;  the  other,  after 
forty  days.  In  his  Gospel,  Luke  follows  the  former;  in 
the  Acts,  the  latter.  With  Meyer,  Alford  agrees.  "  Luke, 
at  the  time  of  writing  his  Gospel,  was  not  aware  of  any  Gali- 
lean appearances  of  the  Lord,  nor  indeed  of  any  later  than 
this  one.  That  he  corrects  this  in  Acts  1,  shows  him  to 
have  become  acquainted  with  some  other  sources  of  infor- 
mation, not  however,  perhaps,  including  the  Galilean  ap- 
pearances." All  this  is  arbitrary  conjecture.  There  is  not 
the  slightest  hint  that  the  Evangelist  wished  to  correct  in 
the  later  account  an  error  in  the  earlier.  Had  he  made  so 
gross  a  mistake,  common  honesty  toward  his  readers  would 
have  demanded  an  explicit  statement  of  it,  and  a  retraction. 
On  the  contrary,  he  says  that  his  former  treatise  embraced 
all  that  Jesus  did  and  taught  "  Until  the  day  in  which  He 


614  THE  LITE   OF   OUE  LOBD. 

was  taken  up,"  which  day,  as  he  says,  was  the  fortieth  after 
His  resurrection.  This  is  a  plain  averment  that  in  his 
Gospel  he  placed  the  ascension  on  the  fortieth  day,  although 
he  did  not  then  give  any  specific  designation  of  time.1 

Those  who,  like  Jones,  make  the  Lord  to  have  often 
ascended,  refer  these  accounts  of  Luke  to  different  events. 
In  the  Gospel  he  speaks  of  the  ascension  on  the  evening 
following  the  resurrection ;  in  Acts,  of  the  last  ascension. 
And  as  the  time,  so  the  place  was  different ;  the  former 
ascension  being  from  Bethany,  the  latter  from  the  summit 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives."  But  Luke's  language,  in  his  Gos- 
pel, plainly  shows  that  he  cannot  speak  of  an  ascension  upon 
the  evening  of  the  day  when  Jesus  arose.  The  day  was  far 
spent  when  He  was  with  the  two  disciples  at  Emmaus,  and 
they  returned  to  Jerusalem,  and  probably  were  some  time 
with  the  Eleven,  ere  Jesus  joined  them.  Some  time  passed 
in  convincing  them  of  His  actual  resurrection,  and  in  dis- 
coursing to  them.  It  must  therefore  have  been  late  in  the 
evening  ere  He  led  them  out  to  Bethany,  two  miles  distant, 
and  the  ascension  itself  must  have  been  in  the  dead  of  night. 
This  is  intrinsically  improbable,  or  rather  incredible. 

When  the  words  recorded  by  Luke  (xriv.  44-48)  were 
spoken,  is  not  certain.  Some  would  put  them  in  immediate 
connection  with  what  precedes ;  others  refer  them  to  a  later 
period  ;  to  the  second  interview  with  the  Eleven,  or  to  the 
meeting  upon  the  mount  in  Galilee,  or  to  the  day  of  the 
ascension.  That  the  Evangelist  gives  here  a  summary  of 
Jesus'  teachings  during  the  forty  days,  is  made  doubtful  by 
the  fact  of  His  opening  their  understanding,  v.  45,  which 
seems  to  refer  to  some  special  act  rather  than  to  a  gradual 
process  of  enlightening.     We  therefore  connect  this  with 

1  See  Ebrard,  596. 

s  In  this  way  Jones  explains  the  statement  of  Barnabas,  that  the  Lord 
ascended  on  the  eighth  or  Sabbath  day.  See  Heferle,  Patrum  Apoatolicorum 
Opera,  42. 


JESUS  DEPARTS  TO  EETUBN  TN  GLORY.       615 

the  reception  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  John  xx.  21-23,  which 
was  on  the  evening  following  the  resurrection.  Possibly 
vs.  46-48  may  have  been  spoken  later.  That  the  command, 
v.  49,  to  tarry  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem  was  spoken  after 
they  had  returned  hither  from  Galilee,  and  is  identical  with 
the  command  Acts  i.  4,  needs  no  proof. 

Thus  comparing  the  several  Evangelists,  we  find  that 
the  Lord,  during  the  forty  days,  first  manifested  Himself  to 
His  disciples  in  Judea,  and,  going  thence  to  Galilee,  return- 
ed again  to  Judea.  So  far  as  we  can  learn,  it  was  not  His 
purpose  to  have  shown  Himself  to  them  in  Jerusalem,  for 
lie  had  commanded  them  to  go  into  Galilee,  and  there  they 
should  see  Him.  But  their  unbelief  in  His  words  respect- 
ing His  resurrection,  made  it  necessary  that  He  should  mani- 
fest Himself  to  them  there ;  yet  even  after  they  had  seen 
Him,  the  unbelief  of  one  seems  to  have  detained  them  some 
days  at  Jerusalem.  As  in  Galilee  He  had  gathered  His 
disciples,  so  here  He  appoints  a  place  of  general  meeting. 
But  He  cannot  ascend  to  His  Father  from  Galilee.  As  He 
went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  die,  He  now  goes  up  thither  again, 
that  from  the  Mount  of  Olives,  overlooking  the  Holy  City 
and  the  temple,  He  may  ascend  to  His  Father's  right  hand 
to  receive  the  kingdom,  and  to  await  the  hour  when  His 
enemies  shall  be  made  His  footstool,  and  the  Lord  shall 
be  King  over  all  the  earth. 

*  gr  men  of  Galilee,  ro(ro,  sfcmb  jtt  gating  tip  into  fjeabra  ?  &(jis 
same  Icsns  forjirb  is  tnktn  op  from  non  info  Jcabett,  sfmll  00  come  m 
Iilu  maniur  as  ne  jjabe  sun  Jim  go  into  $rabrn." 


GENERAL   INDEX 


Abla.  course  of,  15. 
Aceldama, 


,  611,  611 
AdaltereM  brought  before  Jesus,  884. 
Aion,  site  of,  155-157. 
Alpnams,  107. 
Andrew  visits  Jesus,  14&. 
Angels,  Appearance   of,   at  aepulohre, 

Annas,  office  of,  187-180 ;  Jesus  taken 

before,  485-400. 
Annunciation,    to    Zacbarias,   48 ;    to 

Mary.  48-42. 
Anointing  of  Jesus,  by  a  wo 

Mr,  260 ;  by  Mary.  401,  402. 
of,  616. 


Apostles,  early  relations  of,  to  Jesus, 
228;  eholoeof,  247;  sending  of,  286- 
288 ;  return  of,  to  Jesus,  208  ;  dispute* 
among,  827  ;  strife  among,  at  paschal 


Appearances  of  Jesus  after  the  resur- 
rection, different  arrangements  of, 
687-402. 

Arch  elans,  188. 

Ascension,  place  of,  607-410 ;  time  of, 
610-614. 

Augustus,  emperor,  census  under,  2,  3  ; 
eloses  the  temple  of  Janus,  13,  14 , 
by,67-7L 


Barabbas,  621. 

Bethabara,  site  of,  140;  Jesus  returns 

thither,  374. 
Bethany  visited  by  Jesus,  871 ;  site  of, 

881 ;   Jesus  lodges  at,  306  j    feast  at, 

808 ;  Jesus  ascends  from,  608-610. 
Bethesda,  pool  of,  180-182. 
Bethlehem,  position  of,  77  ;  cave  of,  78- 

83. 
Beth  phage,  site  of,  404,  405. 
Betbsalda,  site  of,  211-217 ;  the  feeding 

of  6.000  there,  200,300. 
Blasphemy,  Jesus  charged  with,  601. 
Blood  and  water,  flowing  of,  662-665. 
Brethren,  the  Lord's,  104-116 ;  did  not 

believe  on  Him,  320,  330. 

Casarea  Phillppl,  visited  by  Jesus,  317. 


Caiaphas,  high  priest,  137 ;  council  at 
palace  of,  421  ;  Jesus  examined  by, 

Cana  of  Galilee,  wedding  at,  148  ;  site 

of,  160,  161. 
Capernaum,  why  selected  by  Jesus,  201 ; 

site  of,  208-220. 
Cedron,  476. 

Chorazin,  site  of,  218,  210. 
Christmas,  when  first  observed,  10. 
Chronology,  patristic,  80-44. 
Circuits    in    Galilee,    arrangement  of, 

223-227 ;  duration  of,  283. 
Cleopas,  606. 
Cook-crowing,  475. 
Corn,  clucking  ears  of,  242. 
Crucifixion,  time  of,  680-638  :  place  of, 

583,  668-500  J  mode  of.  535-539. 
Cyrenius,  governor  of  Cyrla,  when,  3-6 ; 

taxing  under,  71-73. 

Dalmanutha,  site  of,  814. 

Daniel,  week  of,  88. 

Darkness  at  the  crucifixion,  542,  548. 

David,  decay  of  his  family,  61. 

Decapolis  visited  by  Jesus,  811,  812. 

Dedication,  feast  of,  371,  372. 

Dream,  Pilate's  wife's,  622. 

Earthquake,  at  crucifixion,  546  ,  at  res- 
urrection, 676. 

Egypt,  Jesus  in,  02,  03. 

Ellas,  forerunner  of  Messiah,  824,  325. 

Emmaun,  site  of,  606-508. 

Ephraim,  site  of,  384,  885  ;  Jesus  so- 
journs at,  386,  387. 

Epiphany,  feast  of,  80,  31 ;  when  kept, 

Eras,  Roman  and  Christian,  1. 

Gadara.     See  Gergesa, 

Galilee,  province  of,  Its  populousness, 
232  ;  sea  of,  202  ,  shores  fitted  for  teach- 
ing, 237  ;  storms  on,  260,  805 ;  Jrsus 
meets  the  seven  disciples  there,  603; 
mount  of,  604. 

Genealogies  of  Jesus,  65-60. 

Gennesaret,  position  of,  202,  219. 


618 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Gerasa.    See  Gergesa. 

Gergesa,  site  of,  271-275 ;  demoniacs  of, 

276,  277. 
Gethsemane,  garden  of,  478,  479;    the 

Lord's  agony  in,  481. 
Golgotha,  559. 
Greeks  desire  to  see  Jesua,  418. 

Harvest,  time  of,  164,  166. 

Herod  the  Great,  time  of  his  death,  1 ; 
character  of,  95,  96. 

Herod  Antipas,  132 ;  hears  of  Jesus, 
290 :  imprisons  John,  291 ;  celebrates 
birthday,  293  ;  threatens  to  kill  Jesus, 
368  :  Jesus  sent  to,  by  Pilate,  619. 

Heroaians,  who,  243. 

Herodias,  293. 

Innocents,  murder  of,  12,  94-96. 

Jacob,  well  of,  166,  167. 

James  the  Apostle,  146,  228. 

James,  son  of  Alpheus,  108-111. 

Jericho,  visited  by  Jesus,  392. 

Jews,  term  as  used  by  John,  447,  448. 

John  the  Apostle,  first  visit  of,  to  Jesus, 
145;  call  of,  228-230;  ambition  of, 
391 ;  at  paschal  supper,  464 ;  at  the 
cross,  541  ;  at  the  sepulchre.  572. 

John  the  Baptist,  time  of  birth,  15 ; 
time  of  beginning  his  ministry,  23,  24 ; 
age  of,  when  he  began  to  preach,  29  ; 
birthplace,  46;  place  of  baptizing, 
140 ;  testimony  to  Jesus,  144, 145  ;  bap- 
tizes at  Jlnon,  155;  relations  of  his 
baptism  to  that  of  Christ,  159-161 ; 
imprisonment  of,  193  ;  message  to  Je- 
sus, 257-259  ;  death  of,  289,  290. 

Jordan,  floods  in,  33-35. 

Joseph,  his  lineage,  48,  49 ;  prior  mar- 
riage of,  105, 106. 

Joseph  of  Arimathea,  receive*  the 
Lord's  body,  555-557. 

Juda,  city  or,  46. 

Judas  offended  at  Christ's  woTds,  400  ; 
bargaining  with  the  priests,  422;  at 
paschal  supper,  463-466  ;  whether  pres- 
ent at  the  Lord's  supper,  470-473  ; 
leads  the  soldiers  to  arrest  Jesus,  483  ; 
returns  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver, 
510 ;  his  death,  510  ;  his  motives,  513. 

Judea,  the  Lord's  work  in,  130. 

Karaites,  427. 

Lazarus,  death  of,  379  ;    sepulchre  of. 

382. 
Levi,  call  of,  237 ;  feast  of,  238,  278-282. 
Lord's  supper,  institution  of,  469,  470. 
LyBanias,  tetrarch  of  Abilene,  133-136. 

Machserus,  292. 

Magdala,  313. 

Magi,  star  of,  9,  91 ;  country  of,  89. 

Malefactors,  two  crucified  with  Jesus, 

535  ;  one  repents,  540  ;  death  of,  549. 
Martha,  sister  of  Lazarus,  370  ;  serves  at 

the  table,  402. 


Mary  Magdalene,  her  character,  280, 
261 ,  visits  the  sepulchre,  671,  672 ; 
Jesus  appears  first  to,  679,  680. 

Mary,  mother  of  Jesus,  parentage  of,  49  : 
of  the  house  of  David.61-65  ;  is  visited 
by  Gabriel,  62  ;  visit-*  Elisabeth,  63-66  ; 
at  the  Passover,  103 ;  at  Cana,  149 ; 
hUpposed  residence  at  Capernaum, 
201,  202 ;  visits  her  son  with  His 
brethren,  266 ;  is  commended  to  the 
care  of  John,  641. 

Mary,  wife  of  Alphams,  who,  107,  108  ; 
sons  of,  109,  110. 

Mary,  sister  of  Lazarus,  is  commended 
by  Jesus,  370  ;  anoints  the  Lord,  402. 

Matthew.     See  Levi. 

Ministry,  the  Lord's,  divisions  of,  117- 
130  ;  in  Judea,  130 ;  in  Galilee,  186- 
IVi  ;  general  features  of.  In  Galilee, 
220-223  ;  later  work  in  Galilee,  296-297. 

Miracles,  of  healing  :— Healing  of  noble- 
man's son,  109  ;  of  impotent  man,  183  ; 
of  the  possessed  in  the  synagogue, 
231  :  of  Simon's  wife's  mother,  231 ;  of 
the  leper,  234  ;  of  the  paralytic.  236  ; 
of  the  man  with  a  withered  hand, 
243  ;  of  the  centurion's  servant,  266 : 
of  blind  and  dumb  possessed,  262 ;  of 
the  Gcrgesene  demoniacs,  278 ;  of 
woman  with  issue  of  blood,  278 ;  of 
two  blind  men,  283  ;  of  a  dumb  person 
possessed,  283 ;  of  the  daughter  of  a 
Phenlclan  woman,  810 ;  of  man  with 
an  impediment  in  speech,  312:  of 
blind  man  at  Bethsaida,  316 ;  of  luna- 
tic child,  326  :  of  man  blind  from  birth, 
337  ;  of  dumb  possessed,  366 ;  of  sick 
woman  In  the  synagogue,  367;  of  a 
man  with  dropsy,  376 ;  of  the  ten 
lepers,  888  ;  of  the  blind  men  at  Jeri- 
cho, 392  ;  of  MaJchus'  ear.  483. 

other  kinds  of :— Changing 


ter  into  wine,  148  ;  escapes  the  wrath 
of  the  Nazarenes,  199 ;  first  draught 
of  fishes,  230;  ralslnjr  of  the  widow's 
son,  266  ;  stilling  of  the  tempest,  269 ; 
raising  of  daughter  of  Jairus,  282; 
feeding  of  the  6,000,  299  ;  walking  on 
the  sea,  306  :  feeding  of  the  4,000.  313  ; 
money  in  fish's  mouth,  326  ;  raising  of 
Lazarus,  379  withering  of  fig  tree, 
413  ;  second  draught  of  fishes,  603. 

in  general  :  — Wrought  at  Jeru- 
salem, at  Passover,  163;  at  Caper- 
naum, 231  ;  by  the  sea-shore,  246  ;  be- 
fore the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  249  ;  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Nazareth,  286  ;  in 
the  land  of  Gennesaret,  307  :  on  east 
side  of  sea  of  Galilee,  312  ;  lu  the  tem- 
ple, 412. 

of  the  apostles,  287. 

of  the  Seventy,  362. 

Naln,  site  of,  266. 

Nathanael,  146. 

Nativity,  cave  of,  79-83. 

Nazareth,  name  of,  98  ;  position  of,  99- 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


619 


Nicoderaus  visits  Jesus,  164 ;  defends 
Jesus,  334  ;  embalms  His  body,  666, 
657. 

Olives,  Mount  of,  path  over  from  Beth- 
any, 407 ;  discourse  upon,  420 ;  dis- 
tance from  Jerusalem,  609,  u.  ;  ascen- 
sion from,  607,608. 

Palestine,  seasons  of,  16-18  ,  climate  of, 
32. 

Parables,  those  spoken  by  the  sea-side, 
266,  267;  beginning  of  teaching  in, 
268 :  of  the  unmerciful  servant,  326  ; 
of  the  good  Samaritan,  363 ;  of  the 
rich  fool,  364 ;  of  fig  tree,  367  ;  of  great 
supper,  377  ;  of  lost  sheep,  lost  piece 
of  silver,  prodigal  son,  unrighteous 
steward,  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus. 
878  :  of  unjust  judge,  of  Pharisee  and 

Bublican,  886  ;  of  the  pounds,  306  ;  of 
tie  two  sons,  the  wicked  husband- 
men, the  king's  son,  414  ;  of  the  fool- 
ish virgins,  the  talent*,  420. 

Paschal  supper,  whether  eaten  by  Jesus, 
426-460  ;  order  of,  466.  467. 

Passovers,  number  of,  in  Jesus'  minis- 
try, 36.  43  ;  Jesus'*  first  attendance  at, 
102:  first  of,  in  His  ministry,  162; 
second  of,  171,  180;  third  of,  808, 
numbers  present  at,  887 ;  last  of  Je- 
sus' ministry,  423;  preparation  for, 
424. 

Perea,  Jesus'  last  Journey  through,  347  ; 
visited  by  the  Seventy,  866. 

Peter,  Simon,  first  meets  Jesus,  146; 
house  of,   201,  231  ;  call  of.  228-280: 

S  reference  shown  to,  with  James  and 
ohn,  282 ;  attempt  to  walk  on  the 
water,  308:  first  confession  of,  808; 

.  second  confession  of,  310,  320  ;  denials 
foretold,  473,  474 :  thrice  denies  the 
Lord,  408-408;  visits  the  sepulchre 
with  John,  603  ;  sees  the  Ix>rd  in  Je- 
rusalem, 600  ;  at  the  lake  of  Tiberias, 
60S. 

Pharisees,  deputation  of,  to  John,  144  ; 
demand  a  sign  of  Jesus,  163 ;  hinder 
baptism  by  Jesus,  170  ;  hostility  to 
Jesus,  244  ;  blasphemy  of,  264,  266  ; 
demand  a  sign,  316;  send  officers  to 
arrest  Jesus,  332  ;  demand  Ills  author- 


ity, 414  j  attempt  to  entrap  Illm,  416, 
416  ;  hypocrisy  of,  rebuked,  417. 
Pilate,  Pontius,  administration  of,  132; 


Jesus  brought  before  him,  616-621 

attempts  to  release  Jesus,    622-628 ; 

sets  of,  620. 
Prisoner,  release  of,  at  Passover,  620. 
Pretorium,  site  of,  614-616. 
Punishment,  capital,  power  to  Inflict, 

when  taken  from  the  Jews,  38,  407, 

408. 
Purim,  feast  of,  174, 177. 

Resurrection  of  saints  at  the  crucifixion, 
646,  647  J  of  Jesus,  hour  of,  686,  687. 


Sabbath,  second-first,  230-242;  strictly 
kept  by  the  Jews,  243 ;  feasts  upon, 
300. 

Sabbaths,  certain  feast  days  so  regard- 
ed, 436,  436. 

Sabbatic  year,  John's  ministry  in,  139. 

Sadducees,  unite  with  Pharisees  against 
Jesus,  314. 

Salome,  mother   of  James  and   John, 

an. 

Samaritans  receive  Jesus,  168 ;  reject 

Him.  861. 
Sanhedrim,    Jesus   before,  184;    sends 

officers    to    arrest    Him,    833 :    takes 

counsel  to  put  Him  to  death.  883 : 

powers  of,  406-400 ;  second  session  of, 

606-600. 
Satun.lnus,  governor  of  Syria,  8. 
Scourging  of  Jesus,  626,  6£8. 
Scribes,  deputation  of,  from  Jerusalem, 

266  ;  second  deputation,  300. 
Sepulchre,  the  Lord's,  site  of,  668-667 ; 

sealing  of,  668. 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  248-263. 
He\< -nty,  the,  sending  of,  862  ;  when  and 

where  sent,  364-368. 
Shepherds  at  Hethlebcm,  i6,  83. 
Sldon.    See  Tyre. 
81  loam,  pool  of,  837. 
Simon  of  Cyrene,  684. 
Soldiers,  Roman,  aid  to  arrest  Jesus. 

480 ;  bribery  of,  604,  606. 
Son  of  God,  term  how  used,  608-606. 
Star  of  the  East,  0-11,  00,  01. 
Sun,  darkening  of,  37,  642. 
Sweat,  bloody,  481. 


Tabernacles,  feast  of,  170  ;  attended  by 
Jesus,  331-888;  order  of  events  at, 
834,336. 

Taxing,  the,  when  made,  2,  6. 

.  .  rebuilt  by  Herod,  8 ;  first  puri- 
fication of,  168:  tax  of,  828;  second 
purification  of,  400,  411 ,  veil  of,  646. 

Temptations,  place  of,  147. 

Thomas,  unbelief  of.  601. 

Tiberius,  colleagueship  with  Augustus, 

at  aa, 

Trial  of  Jesus,  of  what  accused,  499- 
604 ;  not  impartial,  606. 


Varus,  governor  of  Syria,  4. 
Via  Dolorosa,  634,  n.  2. 

"Washing  of  disclpleB'  feet  by  Jesus,  46li 

462;  of  Pilate's  hai.ds,  624. 
Women  of  Galilee  attending  Jesus,  261 ; 

visit  to  sepulchre,  673,  674,  682,  634- 


Zaccheus,  394,  395. 

Zae.harias,  not  high  priest,  46  ;  home  of, 

46,48. 
Zacbarias,  son  of  Barachlas,  who,  41T. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  INDEX. 


Annunciation  to  Zaobariaa,     .       .  .        •        •        -..f^t  •   »j  «•       JJ 

Elisabeth  conceives  a  son,  and  lives  In  retirement,     OcL-Marcb,    0-6  46 

Annunciation  to  Mary,         .        .  •        ••»•_,,  April,  6 

Mary  visits  EliBabeth,  and  remains  threo  month*,       ApriWune,  6 

Birth  of  John  the  Baptist,       .        .        .        .        .        ■        •   J™**  f  ,            » 

Joseph  and  Mary  go  to  Bethlehem  to  be  taxed,       .       .       ^ec-»  • 

Jesus  born  at  Bethlehem, Dec.,  6  « 

The  angel  and  the  shepherds, Deo.,  6 

Circumcision  of  Jesus, -*?*•  7  . 

Presentation  of  Jesus, Feb.,  4 

Coming  of  the  Magi, Feb.,  4  '            89 

Flight  of  Jesus  into  Egypt, Feb.,  4  92 

Return  to  Nazareth,  and  sojourn  there.         ....    May,  4  ' 

Jesus,  at  twelve  years  of  age,  attends  the  Passover,         .      April,  8  a.  d.      101 

John  the  Baptist  begins  his  labors,         ....      Summer,  26  "         181 

Baptism  of  Jesus, Jan.,  27  "          131 

Jesus  tempted  in  the  wilderness, Jan. -Feb.,  27  u         148 

Deputation  of  Priests  and  Levites  to  the  Baptist,    .        .        Feb.,  27  "         148 

Jesua  returns  to  Galilee, Feb.,  27  "         148 

Wedding  at  Cana  of  Galilee, Feb.,  27  M         148 

First  Passover  of  Jesus' ministry  ;  cleansing  of  temple,       April,  27  w         162 

Jesus  begins  to  baptize, May,  27  "         152 

Jesus  departs  into  Galilee,  through  Samaria,   .        .                Dec.,  27  "         188 

A  few  weeks  spent  by  Jesus  In  retirement,          .         Jan.- April,  28  "         188 

The  Baptist  imprisoned, March,  28  "         188 

Second  Passover ;  healing  of  impotent  man,        .        .        .  April,  28  "         171 

Jesus  begins  His  ministry  in  Galilee,         .        .        .    April-May,  28  "         193 
Calling  of  the  four  disciples,  and  healings  at  Capernaum, 

April-May,  28  "         220 

First  circuit  in  Galilee ;  healing  of  the  leper,              .       .    May,  28  "         232 

Return  to  Capernaum,  and  healing  of  the  paralytic,        Summer,  28  "         238 
Plucking  the  corn,  and  healing  the  man  with  withered  hand, 

Summer,  28  "         239 

Choice  of  apostles,  and  Sermon  on  the  Mount,         .         Summer,  28  "         246 

Healing  of  centurion's  servant  at  Capernaum,     .        .     Summer,  28  M         263 

Journey  to  Nain,  and  raising  of  the  widow's  son,    .         Summer,  28  "         265 

Message  to  Jesus  of  the  Baptist, Summer,  28  "         255 

Jesus  anointed  by  the  woman  ;  a  sinner.    .        .        .        Autumn,  28  M         259 
Healing  at  Capernaum  of  the  blind  and  dumb  possessed  ; 
charge  of  the  Pharisees  that  He  casts  out  devils  by 

Beelzebub,  .                       Autumn,  28  "         282 

Teaching  in  parables,  and  stilling  of  the  tempest,    .         Autumn,  28  "         266 
Healing  of  demoniacs  in  Gergesa,  and  return  to  Capernaum, 

„     ,_          M                                                                      Autumn,  28  u         270 
Matthew's  feast ;  healing  of  woman  with  issue  of  blood, 

and  raising  of  Jairus' daughter,       ....     Autumn,  28  "         277 
Healing  of  two  blind  men,  and  a  dumb  possessed:  Phari- 
sees blaspheme, Autumn,  28  «         988 


PACK 

29  A.  D. 

29   « 

284 
284 

29  " 

29  " 

298 
806 

29  " 

309 

29  « 

814 

29  " 

816 

CHRONOLOGICAL  INDEX.  621 


Second  visit  to  Nazareth  ;  sending  of  the  Twelve,      .       Winter, 

Death  of  Baptist ;  Jesus  returns  to  Capernaum,  Winter, 

Crossing  of  the  sea,  and  feeding  of  the  5,000 ;  return  to 

Capernaum, Spring, 

Discourse  at  Capernaum  respecting  the  Dread  of  life,  April, 

Jesus  visits  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Bidon  -  heals  the  daugh- 
ter of  Syro-Phcanictan  woman ;  visits  the  region  of 
Decapolis :  heals  one  with  an  impediment  in  his  speech  ; 
feeds  the  4,000, Summer, 

Jesus  returns  to  Capernaum ;  is  tempted  by  the  Pharisees  ; 
reproves  their  hypocrisy  ;  again  crosses  the  sea  ;  heals 
blind  man  at  Bethsalda, Summer, 

Peter's  eonfeasion  that  He  is  the  Christ ;  He  announces  His 
approaching  death  and  resurrection  ;  the  transfigura- 
tion,         Summer, 

Healing  of  lunatic  child. Summer, 

Jesus  journeys  through  Galilee,  teaching  the  disciples ; 
at  Capernaum  pays  the  tribute  money  ,  goes  up  to 
feast  of  Tabernacles, Autumn, 

He  teaches  In  the  temple  ;  efforts  to  arrest  Him,  Oct., 

An  adulteress  is  brought  before  Him ;  attempt  to  stone 
Him ;  healing  of  a  man  blind  from  birth  ;  return  to 
Galilee, Oct., 

Final  departure  from  Galilee ;  is  rejected  at  Samaria ; 

sending  of  the  Seventy,  wbom  he  follows.  Nov., 

Jesus  Is  attended  by  great  multitudes  ;  parable  of  the  good 

Samaritan  ;  He  gives  a  form  of  prayer,  .        .    Nov., 

Healing  of  a  dumb  possessed  man  :  renewed  blasphemy  of 
the  Pharisees;  dining  with  a  Pharisee  -,  Jesus  rebukes 
hypocrisy  ;  parable  of  the  rich  fool,    .  Nov.-Dec., 

Jesus  is  tola  of  the  murder  of  the  Galileans  by  Pilate; 
parable  of  the  fig  tree  ;  healing  of  a  woman  18  years 
sick  ;  Is  warned  against  Herod,  Nov.-Dee., 

Feast  of  Dedication  ,  visit  to  Mary  and  Martha ;  the  Jews 
at  Jerusalem  attempt  to  stono  Him  ;  He  goes  beyond 
Jordan, Dec., 

Jesus  dines  with  a  Pharisee,  and  heals  a  man  with  dropsy  ; 
parables  of  the  great  supper,  of  the  lost  sheep,  or  the 
lost  piece  of  silver,  of  the  unjust  steward,  of  the  rich 
man  and  Lazarus, Deo., 

Resurrection  of  Lazarus  ;  counsel  of  the  Jews  to  put  nira 

to  death  ;  He  retires  to  Ephraitn,  Jan.-Fob., 

Sojourn  In  Ephraim  till  Passover  at  hand  ;  Journeys  on  the 
border  of  Samaria  and  Galilee  ;  healing  of  ten  lepers  ; 
parables  of  the  unjust  Judge,  and  of  Pharisee  and  pub- 
lican ;  teaohlng  respecting  divorce ;  blessing  of  chil- 
dren ;  the  young  ruler,  and  parable  of  laborers  in  the 
vineyard, Feb.-March, 

Jesus  again  announces  His  death  ;  ambition  of  James  and 

John, March, 

Healing  of  blind  men  at  Jericho  ;  Zacoheus  ;  parable  of  the 

pounds  ;  departure  to  Bethany,        ....         March, 

Supper  at  Bethany,  and  anointing  of  Jesus  by  Mary,  Sat.,  April  1, 

Entry  into  Jerusalem ;  visit  to  the  temple,  and  return  to 

Bethany, Bund.,  April  2, 

Cursing  of  the  fig  tree ;  second  purification  of  the  temple  ; 

return  to  Bethany, Mo  d.,  April  8, 

Teaching  in  the  temple  ;  parables  of  the  two  sons,  of  the 
wicked  husbandmen,  of  the  king's  son;  attempts  of 
His  enemies  to  entangle  Him  ;  the  poor  widow  ;  the 
Greeks  who  desire  to  see  him  ;  a  voice  heard  from 
Heaven  ;  departure  from  the  temple  to  the  Mount  of 
Olives ;  discourse  respecting  the  end  of  the  world ; 
return  to  Bethany ;  agreement  of  Judas  with  the 
priests  to  betray  Him, Tues.,  April  4,      80     "         412 

Jesus  seeks  retirement  at  Bethany,       .       .  Wed.,  April  6,     80     "         428 


■ 

m 

334 

m 

t< 

345 

B 

m 

368 

a 

tt 

364 

u 

it 

866 

u 

tt 

870 

g 

it 

876 

M 

tt 

378 

M 

it 

886 

M 

ti 

889 

M 

30 

it 

392 
396 

30 

it 

408 

30 

ii 

410 

622  CHRONOLOGICAL  INDEX. 

OB 

Bending  of  Peter  and  John  to  prepare  the  Passover ;  the 

paschal  supper, Thnrs.,  April  6,      30  A.  23 

Events  at  paschal  supper,        .        .        .         Thurs.  eve.,  April  6,      80     *'  *60 

After  supper  Jesus  foretells  the  denials  of  Peter  ;  speaks 

of  the  coming  of  the  Comforter,  and  ends  with  prayer, 

Thurs.  eve.,  April  6,  80  "  473 
Jesus  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane,  .  Thurs.  eve,  April  6,  30  "  477 
Jesus  is  given  into  the  hands  of  Judas,  Thurs.,  midnight,  April  6,  80  "  482 
Jesus  is  led  to  the  house  of  Annas,  and  thence  to  palace  of 

Caiaphas  ;  is  condemned  for  blasphemy. 

Friday,  1-6  A.  *.,  April  7.      80     «•         486 
Mockeries  of  His  enemies  :  he  is  brought  the  second  time 

before  the  council,  and  thence  taken  before  Pilate, 

Friday.  6-6  a.m.,  April  7,      80     "         608 
Charge  of  sedition  ;  Pilate  finds  no  fault  with  Him,  and 

attempts  to  release  Him,  but  is  forced  to  scourge  Him, 

and  give  Him  up  to  be  crucified,       Friday,  6-0  a.  m.,  April  7,      30     *         614 
Jesus  is  crucified  at  Golgotha,  Friday,  9-12  A.  M.,  April  7,      80     "         630 

Upon  the  cross  is  reviled  by  His  enemies  ;  commends  His 

mother  to  John  ;  darkness  covers  the  land  ;  He  dies  *, 

the  earth  Bhakes,  and  rocks  are  rent, 

Friday.  12  A.  M.-8  p.  *..  April  7,      80     "         680 
His  body  taken  down  and  given  to  Joseph,  and  laid  in  his 

sepulchre, Friday,  3-6  p.  *.,  April  7,      SO     ■         648 

Resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene, 

Sunday  A.  M.,  April  0,      80     «         670 
Appearance  to  the  two  disciples  at  Emmaus  ;  to  Peter  and 

to  the  Eleven  at  Jerusalem,    .       .         Sunday  p.  *.,  April  9,      30     "         696 
Appearance  to  the  apostles  and  Thomaa,  Sunday,  April  16,      30     "         601 

Appearance  to  seven  disciples  at  sea  of  Tiberias,  and  to 

600  at  mountain  in  Galilee.          ....       April-May,      30     "  603 
Final  appearance  to  the  disciples  at  Jerusalem,and  ascen- 
sion to  heaven, Thursday,  May  18,      30     "         606 


PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  REFERRED  TO  IN  THE 
HISTORY. 


MATTHEW. 

L  20         48 

L  18-26 66 

H.     1-12 89 

11.  13-23 92 

Ml.     1-17 131 

lv.    1-11 143 

iv.  12  171 

lv.  12-17 193 

lv.  18-22 220 

v.,  vi.,  vM 245 

tMI.    2-4    234 

vMi.    6-18 263 

viil.  14-17 220 

vlll.  18-27 286 

vlll.  28-34 270 

lx.     1  270 

Ix.     2-9    236 

ix.  10-26 277 

Ix.  27-34 283 

lx.  86-88 284 

X.    1-42 284 

XL    1         284 

xL    2—10 266 

XL  20-80 269 

Xli.     1-14 289 

xli.  16-21 246 

xM.  22—60 262 

XML     1-62 266 

xllL  53-68 284 

Xiv.     1-12 284 

xlv.  18-84 298 

xlv.  34—36 806 

xv.    1—20 308 

xv.  21-89 809 

xvl.    1-18 314 

xvl.  14-28 816 

xvll.     1—9    816 

xvll.  10-21 824 

xvll.  22—27 326 

xvill.     1-86 326 

xix.    1-2    846 

xlx.    2         363 

xix.    8—30 886 

xx.    1-16 886 

xx.  17-28 889 


xxl. 
xxl. 
xxl. 
xxH. 

xxiii., 

xxvi. 

xxvl. 

xxvl. 

xxvl. 

xxvl. 

xxvl. 

xxvl. 

xxvl. 

xxvl. 

xxvll. 

xxvil. 
xx  vM. 

xxvll. 

xxvll. 
xxviil. 
xxvlil. 
xxvlM. 


1-11 408 

12-19 410 

20-46 412 

1-46 412 

xxiv.,  xxv.,  . .  413 

1-16 413 

6-13 396 

17-20 423 

20-29 460 

80-86 473 

86-46 477 

47-56 482 

67-76 485 

67-68 606 

1-10 606 

11-31 614 

82-88 680 

89—66 639 

67-66 648 

1-8    670 

9-16 671 

16-20 608 


MARK. 

L    4—11 131 

L  12—13 143 

I.  14— 16  ....171-193 

L  16-34 220 

L  86-89 232 

II.  1-14 235 

M.  16—22 277 

1L  23-28 239 

Ml.     1-6 239 

ill.     7-19 246 

Ml.  20-21 258 

ML  22-86 262 

lv.    1-41 266 

V.     1-20 270 

v.  21-43 277 

Vi.     1-30 284 

vL  31-62 298 

vi.  68—56 306 

yll.     1—23 308 

vil.  24—37 309 

vlll.     1—10 309 

vlll.  11-26 814 


vlll.  27-38 316 

lx.    1-10 316 

lx.  11-29 324 

X.     1  346 

X.    2-31 386 

x.  32— 45  ..» 889 

x.  46—62 392 

xl.     1-10 403 

xl.  11  404 

xl.  12-19 410 

xl.  20-33 412 

Xli.     1—40 412 

xil.  41-44 413 

Xlil.    1-37 418 

xlv.    1-2    413 

xlv.    8-9    396 

xlv.  10—11 413 

xlv.  12-17 428 

Xlv.  18-26 460 

Xlv.  26-81 473 

xlv.  32—42 477 

Xlv.  48-62 482 

xlv.  68-72 486 

xlv.  65         506 

xv.    1         506 

xv.    2—20 614 

xv.  20-28 630 

xv.  29-41 539 

xv.  42-47 548 

xvl.    1-8    670 

xvl.    9—11 671 

xvl.  12         696 

xvl.  18—14 696 

xvl.  16—18 603 

xvl.  19-20 607 


LUKE. 

I.    6-22 46 

I.  23-26 46 

1.  26-38 48 

1.  39-56 68 

1.  67-80 66 

11.     1—5    66 

II.    6-7    77 

II.    8—20 88 

11.  21-88 84 


624 


PASSAGES   OP  SCP.IPTUBE. 


if.  39-40 92 

ii.  41-52 101 

ill.    1—22 131 

iv.    1-13 143 

iv.  14         171 

iv.  14-32 193 

iv.  33—42 220 

iv.  43-44 232 

v.    1-11 220 

v.  12—16 234 

v.  17—28 236 

v.  29—39 277 

vi.    1-11 239 

vi.  12—49 245 

vii.    1-10 253 

vii.  11—35 255 

vii.  36—50 259 

viil.     1—3    259 

viii.    4—15 266 

viii.  19—21 262 

viii.  22—25 266 

viii.  26—39 270 

Viii.  40—56 277 

ix.    1—9    284 

Ix.  10—17 298 

ix.  18-36 316 

ix.  37—42 824 

ix.  43—50 326 

L».  51—56 345 

ix.  57-60 266 

ix.  61-62 345 

x.    1—24 345 

x.  25—37 363 

x.  38 — 42 370 

Xi.     1—13 363 

xi.  14-36 364 

xii.     1—22 364 

xii.  22—59 366 

xiii.    1—36 366 

xiv.    1—35 875 

xv.    1—32 375 

xvi.    1—31 376 

xvii.    1-10 376 

xvii.  11—37 385 


xviii.     1-14 386 

xviii.  15—30 380 

xviii.  31-34 389 

xviii.  35—43 392 

xix.     1-28 392 

xix.  29-44 403 

xix.  45—48 410 

xx.     1-18 412 

xx.  19-47 418 

xxi.     1-36 413 

xxii.     7-14 423 

xxil.  15-30 400 

xxii.  31-38 473 

xxii.  39—46 477 

xxii.  47—48 482 

xxii.  49—53 488 

xxii.  64-62 486 

xxii.  63-71 606 

xxiii.     1  606 

xxiii.    2—25 614 

xxiii.  26-34 680 

xxiii.  35-49 639 

xxiii.  50—66 648 

xxiv.     1—9    670 

xxiv.    9—12 671 

xxiv.  13—32 966 

xxiv.  33-48 696 

xxiv.  49  606 

xxiv.  60—63 607 

JOHN. 

1.  19-61 143 

i.  32-34 131 

11.     1-18 148 

ii.  14—26 162 

ili.     1-22 152 

Hi.  26-36 158 

Iv.     1-45 158 

iv.     2  162 

iv.  46—54 159 

v.     1-47 171 

vi.     1-21 298 

vi.  22—66 306 


vi.  67-71 807 

vii.    2—10 896 

vii.  11-68 881 

viii.    1-69 384 

lx.     1-89 384 

x.     1-21 884 

x.  22-84 870 

x.  25—42 871 

xi.     1-46 378 

xi.  47-67 379 

xi.  64-67 886 

xii.     1-11 398 

xii.  12-20 403 

xxii.  20—36 413 

xiii.     2—30 460 

xiii.  86—38 478 

xiv.,  xv.,  xvi.,  xvii.,  473 

xviii.    1-2    477 

xviii.    8—12 482 

xviii.  18—27 486 

xvlli.  28-32 613 

xviii.  83—40 614 

xix.    1-16 614 

xix.  16-24    630 

xix.  26—30 689 

xix.  81-42 648 

xx.     1-18 870 

xx.  19-23 696 

xx.  24—29 601 

xxi.     1-28 608 

ACTS. 

I.    1-8    606 

1.    9-12 607 

i.  18-19 608 

1  CORINTHIANS. 

xv.    6         696 

xv.    6         60S 


PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  REFERRED  TO  IN  THE 
CHRONOLOGICAL  ESSAYS. 


MATTHEW. 

ii.    1-7    9 

ii.  16         12 

LUKE. 

i.    5         U 

i.  24         15 

ii.    2         3 

ii.    8         16 

Hi.  1,2       23 


iii.  23  7 

iv.    9  40 

xiii.    6-9  88 

JOHN. 

i.  29  22 

H.  20  8,40 

▼•     1  36 

viii.  57  40 

xviii.  18  ....  17 

xviii.  31  37 


NTJMBERa 
iv.    8         8 

DANIEL. 
ix.  27         88 

ISAIAH. 
lxi.    2         49 


THE   END. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 

*  


FEB     7  1943 


22*Pr'52SA 


Z2 


^^z 


— 


-zU> 


fcfrpi'SW* 


MAR*  'ASHE 


U  OCT'59AB 


REC'D  LD 


*eiTTF 


"v«J 


XP** 


SSS^l 


H§    1980 


Ll>21-100m-7/40(693P 


YB  2QC42 


